Please fill in the name of the event

Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference (ADIPEC) 2021

you are preparing this manuscript for.

Please fill in your 6-digit SPE

SPE-207566-MS
manuscript number.

Please fill in your manuscript title. The Geochemical Survey Methods for Optimization of Oil Field Development

Please fill in your author name(s) and company affiliation.

Given Name Middle Name Surname Company
Maria Sergeevna Shipaeva Kazan Federal University
Danis Karlovich Nurgaliev Kazan Federal University
Vladislav Anatolevich Sudakov Kazan Federal University
Artur Albertovich Shakirov Kazan Federal University
Azat Abuzarovich Lutfullin PJSC Tatneft
Bulat Galievich Ganiev PJSC Tatneft
Lenar Ilfatovich Minikhairov PJSC Tatneft

This template is provided to give authors a basic shell for preparing your manuscript for submittal to an SPE meeting or
event. Styles have been included (Head1, Head2, Para, FigCaption, etc.) to give you an idea of how your finalized paper will
look before it is published by SPE. All manuscripts submitted to SPE will be extracted from this template and tagged into an
XML format; SPE’s standardized styles and fonts will be used when laying out the final manuscript. Links will be added to
your manuscript for references, tables, and equations. Figures and tables should be placed directly after the first paragraph
they are mentioned in. The technical content of your paper WILL NOT be changed. Please start your manuscript below.

Abstract
The paper considers issues of determining the direction of filtration for oil deposits by means of
complex study of the geochemical composition of formation fluids and the dynamics of
bottomhole pressure and flow rates, and further use of this information in geological and
reservoir simulation models. This integrated technology is not expensive and makes it possible
to identify geological uncertainties in the reservoir for intelligent management of development
processes, such as waterflooding optimization, reservoir simulation models improvement,
water cut source definition, etc. Improving the reliability of information about the reservoir and
the presented fluids is undoubtedly relevant and significant task. To solve this problem, fluid
samples were taken and complex studies of the composition of the produced water was
carried out, including the determination of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes and element
composition. The authors note that the isotopic composition of formation waters for a number
of wells differs from the analogical parameters for injected water, which is probably associated
with the area of uneven reservoir distribution and the existence of a stagnant undrained zone.
The result of the calculations is an estimate of the impact coefficient of the injected water on
the water composition in the surrounding producer wells. In addition to this, the work included
the analysis of the dynamics of fluid flow rate, oil flow rate, bottomhole and reservoir
pressures, the influence of injection on the pressure in the drainage area of producer wells.
Basing on the results obtained the recommendations were given for changing the injection
patterns as it is noted that a number of wells are not affected by injection. Recommendations
have been developed for carrying out workovers in order to prevent a decrease in pressure
and an increase in oil production.
2

1. Introduction
While developing heterogeneous oil reservoirs with variation of porosity and permeability, there
is a question of determining the direction of injected water flow when introducing water
flooding, and further – maintaining a rational amount of voidage replacement by injection.
Basing on geochemical studies of the produced fluid, it is possible to determine the source of
inflow to the well production: this is achieved due to the fact that at the level of chemical
components, the formation fluid (water and oil) has its own characteristic features (Shipaeva et
al., 2020; Leontyeva, 2015).
General studies of the geochemical composition of groundwater and brines are sufficiently fully
covered in the works of M.G. Valyashko, I.K. Zaitseva, A.M. Ovchinnikov, G. Craig and other
authors (Valyashko et al., 1981; Khisamov et al., 2009, Shipseva et al., 2019).
High water cut is a problem, the source of which is not always clear. Figure 1 shows the
simplest diagram of the way of using the formation pressure maintenance (FPM) system. In
most cases, there are 3 types of injected water: fresh, waste, reservoir (brines). By studying
the composition and properties of the water produced by the wells, and the water injected by
the reservoir pressure maintenance system, it is possible to understand its source.

Figure 1 – Simplified diagram of the FPM (formation pressure maintenance) system application

The essence of the technology considered in the paper includes sequential downhole
geochemical survey of wellhead samples, analysis of injection, production and reservoir
pressure data, introducing the results into geological and reservoir simulation models. The
advantage of the proposed complex study technology over other methods for identifying
geological uncertainties is the combination of the results of geochemical survey and backcast
analysis of production. These methods are cost-effective and fast methods of study, which
allows timely improvement of existing geological and reservoir simulation models, identifying
areas of the field with high risks of not confirming the geological structure and significantly
reduce the risks of unsuccessful wellwork.

2. Object of study
The Republic of Tatarstan is a mature oil-producing region. Many fields and deposits have
moved to the last stage of development. Massive organization of waterflooding implementation
 3

from the very beginning of the field development in the Republic ensured an unprecedentedly
high rate and efficiency (Muslimov, 2007; Abramov et al., 2015). The geological structure of
the Romashkinskoye field includes deposits of the Permian system, exposed on the surface,
as well as of the Carboniferous and Devonian, penetrated by wells.
The object of the study is terrigenous strata of the Bobrikovian horizon of the Visean stage of
the Middle Carboniferous (Fig. 2).
The Bobrikovian oil deposit is very heterogeneous in structure, there are beds from the bottom
up Сbb-1, Cbb-2, Cbb-3, Cbb-4, which can merge and wedge out over the area. The reservoir
is of a layer-uplifted deposit type, composed of sandstones.

Figure 2 – Location of the study site

3. Methods of measurements
The methods of mass spectrometry were used in the work. Inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometry is a type of mass spectrometry that uses inductively coupled plasma to ionize a
4

sample. This method is based on direct measurement of the mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of
elementary positively charged ions obtained from the test substance in the gas phase.

Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry is widely used due to its high sensitivity for
many trace elements, large linear dynamic range and multi-element analysis capability. The
method also allows one to determine with high accuracy the ratio of the concentrations of
isotopes of various elements (Khanchuk et al., 2014).

4. Results and Discussion

In the study area, wellhead samples of formation fluid were taken from production and injector
wells for further laboratory studies (Fig. 3).

Figure 3 – Samples for research

Sampling and study of samples of formation waters were carried out twice with a time interval
of 2 months. The reliability of measurements for the definition of baseline values for the study
area calculated on the basis of measurements before and after was 92%. The results of
measuring the composition of waters are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – Geochemical survey results

Markers, ppm
Well № Horizon/type
δ О, ‰ δ D, ‰ A B C D F I
1 Сbb-3+Сbb-1+2 -13.81 -101.68 0.40 2733.38 221.09 56.87 121.14 71.09
2 Сbb-4+Сbb-3 -13.36 -100.27 0.35 3307.46 250.45 75.08 130.42 69.93
3 Сbb-4+Сbb-3 -13.06 -96.01 0.99 7536.13 450.34 163.63 156.18 62.39
4 Сbb-3+Сbb-1+2 -13.67 -100.91 0.53 2430.55 175.00 54.74 58.72 21.17
5 Сbb-3+Сbb-1+2 -11.16 -83.97 1.06 10359.57 685.53 214.08 280.60 127.79
6 Сbb-4+Сbb-3+Сbb-1+2 -13.39 -100.13 0.86 4695.90 345.26 108.60 110.25 43.24
7 Сbb-3+Сbb-1+2 -10.70 -76.97 1.27 13101.54 922.51 293.35 332.91 120.06
8 Сbb-3 -12.88 -96.97 0.97 5352.51 345.04 122.65 125.03 51.72
9 Сbb-3 -9.09 -71.08 3.84 19795.46 1233.36 441.95 412.66 224.19
10 Сbb-3 -6.09 -46.92 6.31 39798.28 2512.21 826.84 595.28 221.50
11 Injector well -14.38 -105.22 0.02 50.47 62.66 4.27 14.67 4.43
12 Injector well -13.98 -103.07 0.03 52.10 72.31 4.62 15.20 4.73
13 Injector well -11.84 -89.75 0.03 93.46 100.07 7.15 22.10 6.65

The content of stable isotopes is denoted by δ or d (delta) - which denotes the relative
deviation of the isotope ratio in the measured sample and in the standard. This is due to the
fact that it is the isotopic composition variations, that are of the greatest interest, rather than
the absolute isotope content.
 5

In the study area fresh water, underground water, waste water and brine were used for
waterflooding.
With such a mixing of waters, complex geochemical processes occur, ultimately affecting the
intensity of the development of reserves. Along with the production logging methods, the
ongoing processes can also be controlled by hydrochemical methods. Sometimes they turn out
to be more informative and less time consuming to implement. The authors examined the
isotopic composition of all water types used for injection and prepared a template (Fig. 4).
Figure 4 shows the isotopic composition of the brine water, which indicates that the waters of
the lower aquifers are much heavier than injected fresh and waste water: the isotope is close
to the oceanic water standard, the δD values are in the range from - 2.18 to - 6.59%, or the
deuterium content in them is 155.42-150 ppm. The water used for injection in our study is
freshwater (green dots in Figure 4).

Oil δ18O, Type of injection δ18O, ‰

Sample δD, ‰
Field ‰ water
-15 -13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1
1 -14.26 -97.65
0
2 -14.24 -96.66
3 -14.26 -96.63
fresh water brine water -10
4 -14.16 -96.32 Template
GLMW -20
5 -10.61 -72.94
These research
6 -9.48 -64.19 waste water -30
7 -8.17 -56.06
Romashkinskoe

-40
8 -9.44 -66.01
9 -7.27 -47.63 -50
reservoir water
10 -4.91 -29.57
11 -5.88 -29.45 -60
12 -2.82 -6.59 -70
13 -3.8 -4.26
14 -3.01 -3.88 -80
15 -5.75 -3.49 -90
brine water
16 -7.32 -2.84

δD, ‰
17 -4.75 -2.61 -100
18 -4.98 -2.51 -110
19 -7.24 -2.18
fresh water
a) b)
Figure 4 – Injection source for research: a) isotopic composition, b) graph of isotopic composition

For meteoric and surface waters of the world (with the exception of areas with arid climates) H.
Craig obtained a direct dependence of δD on δ 18О, described by the equation of a straight
line: δD = 8 δ18О + 10 ‰ (Zykin, 2012). This line has become widespread in the practice of
isotope research under the name of the Craig line or the global meteoric water line (GLMW).
Comparison of the plotted actual data with the Craig line allows solving the problems of
determining the conditions for the formation of groundwater.
The data on the isotopic composition of the production and injector wells of the area were
plotted on the graph of the dependence of the isotope of oxygen and hydrogen (Fig. 5).
The graph (Fig. 5) shows that the isotopic composition of water from wells №№9 and 10
deviate from the Craig line, which may be due to a closed system and, accordingly, a water
source may not be in communication with the main part of the oil reservoir. The increase in
δ18O content in groundwater is usually explained by ion exchange with oxygen-containing
rocks, mainly with silicates (Fig. 5, wells №№9, 10). Isotope exchange (or fractionation) is a
process that leads to a change in the distribution of isotopes between different chemical forms
of elements, different phases, or within molecules. Isotope exchange, i.e. a change in the ratio
6

of isotopes is caused by various physicochemical processes: evaporation and condensation,

freezing and thawing, leaching, precipitation, ion exchange, gas evolution, absorption by living
organisms.
The isotopic composition of the formation waters of wells №№5,7,9,10 in most wells differs
from the injected water. These wells are characterized by a reservoir pinchout zone, this is a
zone of small thicknesses along the edge of the reservoir (Fig. 2).

a)

b)
Figure 5 – Isotopic composition of formation waters: a) graph, b) map

Data processing by methods of mathematical statistics

A predictive model of the correspondence between the compositions of injected and produced
water was obtained using machine learning, as a result of which the impact coefficient by
producer wells was calculated (Table 2).
 7

The authors used optimization of the function where the main term is the similarity of the
components. The function is designed to find the impact coefficient of injector wells, which has
the following penalty terms:

- Penalty term depending on distance between the wells:

𝛽𝑑𝑧, (1)
where 𝑑 is the corresponding distance to the injector wells, 𝛽 is the distance importance
parameter, 𝑧 is the impact coefficient of injector wells.

- Penalty term for too little impact coefficient of injector wells:

𝜌(1 − ∑ 𝑧 ), (2)
where, 𝜌 is the penalty parameter.

So, the greater the distance to the well, the less the influence due to the first term. Moreover, if
the components of several injector wells coincide, then the first term will give a proportional
dependence on the distance. Due to the second penalty term, the total influence from injector
wells increases.

The result of optimization is the impact coefficient of the injected water on the composition of
the surrounding producer wells of the area (Table 2).

Table 2 – Distribution of water impact coefficient from injector wells in the production of
producer wells
Injector wells №
Well Horizon C1bb
11 12 13
10 C1bb 1 0 0 0
4 C1bb 0.36 0.64 0 0
8 C1bb 0.57 0.43 0 0
1 C1bb 0.52 0 0.38 0.10
5 C1bb 0.84 0 0.16 0
6 C1bb 0.57 0 0 0.43
9 C1bb 0.95 0.05 0 0
2 C1bb 0.65 0.10 0 0.25
7 C1bb 0.95 0 0 0.05
3 C1bb 0.54 0 0 0.46

Backcast analysis of production

To assess the impact of injector wells on the surrounding producers the authors carried out a
retrospective (backcast) analysis of the production dynamics. For this, the following inputs
were used for each well:
- liquid flow rate, oil flow rate,
- water cut,
- bottomhole pressure (dynamic level),
- reservoir pressure (static level).
These parameters can be processed based on the solution of the piezoconductivity equation
using tools commonly used in the analysis of well testing (Osmond et al., 1974).
8

The assessment of the effect of injection was carried out in several stages (Fig. 6):
1. History matching of the initial data of bottomhole and reservoir pressures basing on the
history of well rates before the organization of the formation pressure maintenance system
(waterflooding). The time interval before waterflooding is characterized by decrease in
bottomhole and formation pressure, well adapted by the model depletion from a impermeable
boundaries of well drainage area. Figure 6a shows the history matching of one of the producer
wells, before introducing the injector well No.11, where the black dashed line shows the model
behavior of the bottomhole pressure and the light green line shows the model behavior of the
flow rate. It can be seen that the calculated values repeat well the actual history data (in dots
and continuous line), and the discrepancy after the start of injection is associated with the
influence of the injector well.
2. In case of pressure discrepancy after entering the adjacent well into the formation
pressure maintenance, the second part of the data is adapted to the formation pressure
maintenance.
3. Evaluation of the FPM effect is made by subtracting the model bottomhole pressure
curves.

Figure 6 – Evaluation of the effect of injection: a) adaptation without the influence of formation pressure maintenance, b)
adaptation with the influence of formation pressure maintenance
 9

As a result of the retrospective analysis, the impact of injection on the pressure in the drainage
area of the producing wells was quantitatively assessed; the values are presented on the map
and table for the entire period from the introduction of the injector wells (Fig. 7 and Table 3).
The analysis showed the presence of the influence of injector wells on a large number of
producer wells. The greatest impact was found from injector well No.11 to well No.8, as well as
a high impact from injector well No.13 to producer wells No.18, 6, 2. Injector well No.13 has
the greatest cumulative impact on producers, which is associated with the highest cumulative
injection in this well.
At the end of the analysis, the reservoir pressure continues to decrease in the drainage area of
the producing wells. To reverse this trend and maintain reservoir pressure, it is recommended
to increase injection in wells No.12 and 13, and keep injection in well No.11.
It is also necessary to consider the conformance control works in injector wells to increase the
uniformity of the formation coverage by injection.

Table 3 - Distribution of influence in units of pressure from injection to producer wells

Injector wells Producer wells Injection influence by Injection influence by
pressure, atm geochemistry, proportion
8 73.0 0.43
4 12.4 0.64
11
17 16.7 -
9 21.1 0.05
18 34.0 -
6 31.0 0.43
16 16.7 -
13 7 0.0 0.14
3 20.5 0.46
2 44.0 0.25
10 0.0 0.00
15 17.6 -
7 0.0 0.00
12
1 28.3 0.38
5 0 0.16
10

Figure 7 – Retrospective analysis results

A number of wells are observed, in which the influence from injector wells No.12, 13, 11 has
not been revealed:
- at well No.7, geochemical research methods revealed the absence of a significant effect of
the injected water, a later retrospective analysis also did not show a significant increase from
the injection of wells No.12 and 13. Possible predominance of the influence of neighboring
producer wells.
- at producer well No.10, a stagnant zone was identified that does not communicate with the
rest part of the reservoir and the water injected, no significant influence from the waterflooding
was found, the entire history of the well operation including flow rate, bottomhole and reservoir
pressure are well matched in the presence of impermeable boundaries of the drainage area.
- at well No.5, the influence of injector well prevails. This injector is not included in this
analysis and is located in the northern part of the area, a significant effect of well №12 was not
detected neither by geochemical research methods or according to the data of the
retrospective analysis.
For majority of the wells, a fairly fast response to the injection start is observed, which is
associated with the relatively high permeability of the object, moderate reservoir thicknesses
(on average from 3 to 12 meters) and small distances between injection and producer wells
(300-400 m). However, the well No.9 differs – there is an effect from injector well No.11 with a
rather long delay, the geochemical composition of water from the well, on the contrary,
indicates that the produced and injected waters are not similar, which may be associated with
a long response due to the reduced permeability in the direction of well No.9 and no water
breakthroughs.
The history matching of the well production data shows that fluid production in the well should
have started to decrease from the beginning of 2005 in the absence of reservoir pressure
maintenance. There is also a decrease in the model reservoir pressure without reservoir
pressure maintenance below the actual measurements. This indicates the presence of a zone
with reduced permeability in the direction from well No.11 to well No.9.
 11

Conclusions
As a result of the conducted geochemical studies and retrospective analysis, the general
conclusion was obtained that some wells are not influenced by injection at all, or are not
significantly influenced.
Well No.10 in terms of geochemical composition differs from the wells of the study area in
terms of produced water properties. It is proposed due to the possible existence of a stagnant
zone and the presence of a non-reservoir rocks, which is also confirmed by the absence of
influence according to the results of retrospective analysis. According to the retrospective
analysis for well No.9, there is a delayed response from the injection of injector wells, which
may be due to the presence of barriers between the wells.
At well No.7, geochemical research methods revealed the absence of a significant effect of the
injected water, there is the predominance of the influence of neighboring producer wells and
no effect from the injection of wells No.12 and 13.
As a result of a comprehensive analysis, production mode of the wells was optimized and
recommendations for workovers were prepared to prevent a decrease in pressure in the area
of study and an increase in production and recovery. It is shown that geochemical methods for
the of reservoir fluids analysis can be used for supporting reservoir simulation models,
adjustments for areas with an unclear distribution of injection across the reservoir and give
simple and understandable conclusions and recommendations.

Acknowledgments
This work was carried out with the financial support of the Ministry of Science and Higher
Education of the Russian Federation in accordance with Agreement No.075-11-2019-032
dated November 26, 2019 within the framework of the project "Creation of a high-tech
hardware and software complex based on neural network algorithms to improve the efficiency
of the development of large hydrocarbon deposits at late stage ".

References
Abramov, M.A., Kubarev, P.N.,2015. Carrying out tracer studies to control and regulate the
process of waterflooding of oil deposits at OAO TATNEFT. Engineering practice No.5: 1-5.
Khanchuk A.I., Sikharulidze G.G., Fokin K.S., Karpov Yu.A. 2014. Elemental Analysis of
Geological Materials by Glow Discharge Mass Spectrometry. Standard Samples No.3: 3-23.
Khisamov, R.S., Gatiyatullin, N.S., Ibragimov, R.L., Pokrovsky,V.A. 2009.Hydrogeological
conditions of oil fields in Tatarstan. «Fan». Kazan: 254.
Leontyeva E.N. 2015. Changes in the chemical composition of produced water from oil fields
in the Verkhnekamsk oil-bearing region under the influence of development. Prospects of
science.No.2 (65): 7 - 10.
Muslimov R.K. 2007. Increasing the role of enhanced oil recovery methods in ensuring the
production of oil reserves. Georesursy = Georesources, 3 (22): 2-7.
Osmond J.K, Kaufman M.J., Cowart J.B. 1974. Mixing volume calcu­lations sources and
aging trends of Floriden aquifer water by uranium isotopic methods.// Geochim. Cosmoch.
Acta. 38. 7: 1083–1100.
Shipaeva M.S., Nuriev I.A., Evseev N.V., Miftahov T.R., Sudakov V.A., Shakirov A.A. 2020.
Improving efficiency of oil recovery and finding a source of watering in multi-zone deposits by
geochemical methods of research. Georesursy = Georesources, 22(4): 93–97. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18599/grs.2020.4.93-97
Shipaeva M., Sudakov V., Lomonosov A., Nurgaliev D., Usmanov S. 2019. Integrated
approach for monitoring of SAGD wells efficiency basing on the optical fiber temperature
12

sensing and geochemical monitoring of production // HORIZONTAL WELLS 2019:

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES: 1-4.
Valyashko M.G. 1981.The main issues of the geochemistry of natural waters and the work of
the laboratory of experimental geochemistry of Moscow State University // Regularities of the
formation of the chemical composition of natural waters. - M.: Publishing house of Moscow
State University: 4–31.
Zykin N.N. 2012. Associated waters of oil and gas condensate fields as unconventional raw
materials for gas-chemical production // Gas industry. Specialist. release. Unconventional oil
and gas resources: 38−42.