SPE-176569-MS

East Siberian Field Waterflood Management

D. A. Burdakov, A. P. Rukavishnikov, and M. A. Tuzovskiy, LLC Irkutsk Oil Company

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference held in Moscow, Russia, 26 –28 October 2015.

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

Abstract
Waterflood strategy for balancing reservoir pressure and improving sweep is proposed. Work objective
was to introduce new workflow that utilizes system approach in waterflood management for maximizing
field performance.
The workflow included classic pattern analysis with rating of zones of interest based on complex
parameters and diagnostic diagrams coupling recovery, pattern production, reservoir pressure and cumu-
lative production before water breakthrough. Top rated patterns injection regimes are optimized with the
aid of reservoir simulation. When choosing a well for conversion producing flow rates and chance of early
water breakthrough or poor pressure response were considered. Detailed correlation, understanding of
reservoir architecture, accurate mapping of properties and multiple simulation runs give the base for
producer to injector conversion decisions.
1. Implementing of the waterflood management workflow resulted in watercut decrease in wells with
early water breakthrough and promises higher recovery for new patterns since uniform injection
replacement is controlled;
2. Process of waterflood management turned into a routine process with known deliverables, action
list is made and discussed every month;
3. Zones with uneven sweep were identified and injection rates were optimized;
4. Process of conversion candidate selection and making a conversion priority list was mastered;
5. Injection wells with completion damage are spotted with the use of production analysis and added
to stimulation program;
6. Intervals of water breakthrough were determined based on correlation, petrophysics and produc-
tion logging, squeeze jobs were planned;
Currently there are only few waterfloods online in East Siberia and sharing management experience
and best practices can without a doubt add value to an existing work process or show the right route for
the new one.

Introduction
Waterflooding is the most widespread method of oil recovery enhancement and formation pressure
maintainance. This is determined by simplicity of technology implementation, availability of injection
2 SPE-176569-MS

fluid and high performance level for majority of geological conditions. Waterflooding may be considered
as effective if wells in pattern produce and inject at potential and volumetric sweep close to technically
achievable is reached. Potential of speed and volume of reserves recovery is frequently not reached since
it is not estimated and therefore is not controlled. Waterflooding management represents a routine of
underperforming pattern identification and executing remedial actions to close the gap between technical
potential and actual performance [7]. Analytical estimation enables fast identification and ranking of
patterns by the difference in estimated potential and actual performance since they ensure the highest
increment upon optimization. When patterns are analytically ranked, detailed calculation, using reservoir
simulation model is executed for the patterns in the upper part of the list.

Reservoir architecture
The pay formation of Yaraktinskoe field is formed with the lower Vendian terrigeneous rocks accumu-
lated on the eroded basement surface. Over the history of area exploration, the properties of Yaraktiskaya
member was described by a number of authors [1, 5]. Sand bodies have been formed as a result of constant
and temporary currents action within the tidal plain adjoin to coastline of north-north-east strike. Tidal
channels, estuarine firths and washover sands prevail nearby the coastline. Sedimentary material filled in
the setting of the basement surface with the latest deposits eroding the lower ones. The earliest deposits
were accumulated in the south-east part of the field; and along the sea-level change, the accommodation
area available for deposition has been widening and shifting towards the north-east forming from three to
seven sedimentary cycles according to various authors. Facies variation along the field area and vicinity
of high energy deposits and dead water areas resulted in a situation where within the field there are areas
of extremely high flow capacity and productivity index of 30 m3/day/atm that are interchanged with low
permeability zones where wells are non-productive unless fracked. When expressing areal difference in
properties using statistic parameters, experimental semivariogram by well permeability built using well
testing data and production analysis exhibits the following characteristics: nugget 0.8, semivariogram
major range 2,500 m, minor range 1,800m, and azimuth 300 degrees. Distance between parts of the field
covered with drilling operations and between exploration wells is more than 5,000m which means that
extrapolation by deterministic algorithms is unable to describe such variability and prediction of high
permeability zones 2000⫻2000m is a probabilistic task; an acceptable quality of productivity prediction
may be reached exclusively on the average in a group, for example in a well pad. With that, a relatively
small value of nugget effect indicated a low variability within the area of similar properties. Permeability
variation coefficient is 3 that according to formation heterogeneity characteristics [4] is classified as rather
heterogeneous. Average compartmentalization factor of formation is 5.3; average net-to-gross is 0.4.
Formation compartmentalization correlates with its thickness and increases towards the south-east.
Vertical heterogeneity by core data may be estimated qualitatively using Lorenz curve in Fig. 1a. The
graph is characterized by sharp convex form with Lorenz coefficient 0.59 which is classified as a reservoir
with extremely high heterogeneity where 78% of flow capacity is accounted for by 30% of storage
capacity.
SPE-176569-MS 3

Figure 1—a) Lorenz curve b) Dykstra-Parsons coefficient

Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of permeability variation [2] that describes waterflooding performance

from the point of view of sweep efficiency is 0.59 (fig. 1b). Awareness of areal formation heterogeneity
and high and low permeability zones presumes a possibility to select various development strategies, in
particular well density for parts of the field. At the same time, awareness of vertical heterogeneity provides
an insight on actual waterflooding pattern and expected sweep characteristics.
One of the major peculiarities of the formation that was examined in detail and described when
developing Verkhnechonskoe oil-gas-condensate field [6] analogous in properties to Yaraktisnkaya
member is halite in net reservoir pores. Although the level of reservoir salinization of Yaraktinskoe field
is lower than the one of Verkhnechonskoe field, physical processes while injecting fresh water into the
pore space partially filled in with salt cannot be ignored. When halite is dissolved in water, water viscosity
grows from 1cP up to 4cP (in case of maximum saturation) which has a positive impact on mobility ratio:
water mobility declines facilitating piston-like oil displacement. However, high permeable channels may
be flushed which will result in lower sweep efficiency at approaching injection water front in particular
upon contact with formation water. In this case salt is deposited in the bottom-hole formation area,
minerals including insoluble ones (gypsum, anhydrite) are crystallized in down hole equipment which lead
to sharp drop of well productivity and necessity to acid-treat of bottom-hole formation zone or to perform
⬙skin⬙ fracturing.
Field waterflood description
Yaraktinskoe field water injection started in in 2008, but until 2012 it was not implemented fieldwide due
to low drilling coverage and insufficient capacity of infrastructure. Along with drilling operation
acceleration and formation of development strategy, delay in injection has occured which resulted in
formation pressure decline in the number of zones.
From the point of view of fluids mobility, conditions for waterflooding Yaraktisnkoe field are
favorable: oil is light and low-viscous (0.93cP), while when mixing with formation water and halite
dissolution as a part of pore cement, injection water acquires a higher viscosity (⬃2Cp), mobility ratio is
0.2. The development pattern is inverted nine-spot with option to transform into five-spot pattern where
wells injectivity is unable to provide necessary injection replacement.
The part of well stock with water breakthrough is 10%; average water-free recovery out of initial
recoverable reserves is 0.41. Displacement characteristics may be divided into two groups with sharp and
4 SPE-176569-MS

smooth water cut increase. The majority of wells with watercut higher than 30% are characterized by
rather high rate of watercut increase (Fig. 2).

Figure 2—Displacement characteristics normed at average water-free recovery out of initial recoverable reserves.

Due to high variability of areal properties with high permeability (500 mD) and low-permeability
(5mD) zones, different development patterns were reviewed since it is obvious that reserves with good
reservoir properties may be produced effectively with a wider well spacing compared to lower permea-
bility reserves. Field areas were determined for two times pattern spacing reduction with infill drilling.
Zones where wider spacing is preferable are mapped.

Base Stock Patterns Rating

Patterns for detailed analysis using reservoir simulation model were prioritized using integrated parameter
that includes normalized indicators of the current compensation, total flow rate of production wells and
heterogeneity indicator which in its turn consists of normalized compartmentalization and vertical
permeability variation coefficient (Fig. 3). With that, rating is divided into two parts: the upper part of the
rating contains patterns with wells that produced water, the lower one – water-free wells. Water producers
and water-free patterns are prioritized by recovery differently: the top of the rating contains water-free
patterns with the highest recovery since water breakthrough is expected sooner, and for patterns with
water production low recovery patterns are in priority as they are not at their potential from the point of
view of sweep efficiency. Priority of total oil flow rate is in descending order so that high flow rate
patterns were optimized first. The current injection replacement is optimized in descending order because
higher injection patterns might have higher misbalance. Parameters are set with different weights: higher
weight for total oil flow rate of production wells and lower weight for other parameters.
SPE-176569-MS 5

Figure 3—Prioritization scheme of base stock patterns

It is worth discussing the ways to calculate injection replacement. Currently, there is a wide range of
pattern injection replacement estimate techniques. Waterflooding patterns frequently include groups of
wells with boundaries selection based on predefined geometry from field development project, streamline
simulation and other criteria. Areas in close vicinity to injection wells may be considered as patterns, and
it is convenient since unit that engineer deals with is not a group that contains several injection wells, but
pattern⫽injection well and optimal injection rate may be calculated directly. However, this approach may
result in higher uncertainty in influence coefficients and in general may decrease accuracy of injection
replacement calculation. Moreover, this approach may be impractical in case of irregular pattern and a
great number of wells. When patterns are identified, influence coefficitients calculation is done by angles
open for inflow with possible modifications of estimation equation based on thickness, permeability and
other characteristics of formation, flow rates, injectivity, and cumulative well production. Sometimes, a
simple division of production and injection between neighboring wells without taking into account pattern
geometry is used for fast-track estimation. In case of reservoir simulation modeling, injection replacement
may be estimated directly from balance of inflow and outflow from the field regions, estimated influence
coefficients though pressure gradients or water with tracer modeling. Some simulators have built-in
options to estimate drainage matrix. Advantage of analytical methods is prompt response and simplicity
of author correction of results when verifying. Reservoir simulation modeling allows considering all the
information on formation properties and production data.
Regardless of selected tool for injection replacement calculation, the most important is its verification.
The main criterion of estimation accuracy is correspondence of formation pressure determined by well
testing to material balance in patterns. Since history matching of formation pressure in reservoir
simulation model will never be perfect such estimates are most useful in case of small coverage of well
testing. Around 70% of well stock in Yaraktinskoe field is covered with well testing annually and since
6 SPE-176569-MS

there is enough information for verification, regular areal patters are used with influence coefficients
calculated using angles open to flow with consecuent correction to formation pressure data according to
material balance.
Optimization of injection rates
Under conditions of initial development stage and declined formation pressure, in most cases the highest
predicted incremental recovery may be reached by increasing injection in all wells. However, since many
wells inject at their maximum potential with current down hole equipment and condition of bottom-hole
area, injectivity can be increased only by change of tubing, treatment of bottom-hole area or ⬙skin⬙
fracturing. That is why ⬙injectivity increase programme⬙ is made.
Optimization design is performed in the order determined by the abovementioned pattern rating.
Estimations may be divided into two groups: estimation to stabilize water production rates of high
watercut wells and estimation to increase water-free recovery.
Water source is determined for high watercut wells. Since oil was flushed from one injection well, there
are undrained reserves on the side of neighbouring wells, and by increasing injectivity of surrounding
injection wells, it is possible to stabilize watercut growth by means of additional oil inflow from poorly
drained zones. In cases when injection well being the source of watercut is on the edge of development
area, then it is possible to restrict injectivity. An example of successful measures to stabilize watercut of
high-rate well is presented in Fig. 4. There is an injection water front in the north, watercut in well No
140 is increasing. After tubing replacement, injection well showed two time injectivity increment which
allowed to push oil from the south, stabilize watercut growth and obtain oil production increment.

Figure 4 —Example of injection optimization for watercut increase stabilization.

For water-free zones for each waterflooding pattern, estimations were made with selection of possible
combinations to select a combination for the highest oil recovery. An estimation example is presented in
SPE-176569-MS 7

Fig.5 that shows that well No. 143 has the highest priority because predicted injection increase has the
highest sustainability to change of conditions in wells No.144 and No.146; at the same time injectivity
increase in wells No. 144 is preferable for cases with high injection rate in well No.143 and unchanged
in well No. 146. In other words, number of options when it is preferable to increase injectivity in well No.
144 in two times than in wells No. 143 and No. 146 is advantageous only at simultaneous increase of
injectivity in wells No. 144 and No. 143; i.e. decision sustainability to increase injectivity in well No. 146
is the lowest towards the change of surrounding wells conditions. Priority order to increase injectivity is
143 ¡ 144 ¡ 146. In case of adjacent patterns with different priority to increase injectivity, patterns with
higher oil rate have the higher rank.

Figure 5—Well prioritization for optimization.

Measurements to increase injectivity are selected based on factors that impact injection wells to
perform below their potential. Bottom-hole zone damage was surveyed using Hall plot [3] with cumu-
lative injection and cumulative drawdown aligned in the axis. Deviation from the straight line is the
indicator of near wellbore zone condition, i.e. if pressure increase result in lower injectivity increase than
in previous operation period, than there is damage. A list of wells was compiled with positive skin
treatment was planned. A great number of wells are equipped with small diameter tubing and at high
wellhead pressure and injectivity index, they produce at a significantly lower potential losing up to 100
atm for friction at injectivity 1400 m3/day (Fig. 6). In case tubing change as an in the example above, rate
may increase up to 1000 m3/day therefore doubling injection. Well with potential of injectivity over 500
m3/day equipped with 73 mm tubing are candidates for change for 89 mm tubing; wells with potential
over 1000 m3/day are candidates for change for 114 mm tubing. The field areas with insufficient surface
pressure are characterized by low wellhead pressure and low injection rates respectively. Looping is
presumed for these areas. Diameters of water-injection system are selected considering predicted potential
injectivity for new areas.
8 SPE-176569-MS

Figure 6 —Cross plot for pressure loss estimation for friction and various tubing diameters.

Conversion to Injection
Well rating for injection conversion programme is formed based on parameter estimated by a simple
equation: sum of reciprocal of normalized oil production rate produced from conversion candidate and
normalized overall production from neighboring production wells. Therefore, the highest priority refers to
the wells candidates for injection conversion with low oil rate included into patterns with high production.
The compiled rating represents a basis of conversion programme with the rate that might be implemented
by current workover teams and availability of water-injection system and injection water. For the
scheduled wells in the nearest month, estimations are made to justify conversion and launching pattern in
relation to incremental production. After that, well for conversion are aligned in the order from the biggest
impact on production increase down to the smallest one so that the most effective wells with optimal rates
were converted first (Fig. 7).

Figure 7—Wells prioritizing for conversion for a month.

Surface network
The existing water injection system consists of two water sources, located at processing facilities,
delivering water to nine well pads and one individual well via different pipelines. The designed water
injection pipelines deliver water to 44 well pads and one individual well.
The present troubleshooting strategy for providing target wellhead pressures and excluding erosional
velocities across high-pressure water injection (WI) pipelines is proposed. Work objective was to check
the proposed design of WI pipelines network along with existing ones and find possible problem areas for
optimizing field performance.
SPE-176569-MS 9

This strategy focuses on simple-quick technique, which contains several steps.

As a first step, network model was created, based on known or proposed layout of pipelines with
captured elevations from satellite map, existing and proposed internal diameters of pipes and expected
water injection rates.
The development of the network model for a designed water injection system is achieved by the
selection and application of proper correlations. Hence, all subsequent optimization work was greatly
improved. The network model is constructed through accurately modeling the pipelines performance. All
pipeline profiles are built in GIS mapping service, using Bing maps, embedded into simulator.
Forecast well injectivities constantly change during new data acquisition and geological model update.
Hence, injection rates are major uncertainty in surface network planning. Average difference in pad
injection rate potential in half a year time is 700 m3/day. During the surface model construction up-to-date
injection rates were used. All high pressure water source wells have been added to the model, as well as
sources at processing facilities.
The model is calculated by means of correlations, using multiphase flow simulator. Two basic
calculation results, affecting on the network design, were considered: pressure profiles along the distance
and erosional velocity ratios. Detailed correlation, accurate mapping of pipelines and multiple simulation
runs give the basis for possible design optimization. See results of the calculation on Fig. 3.
Problem areas with pressures, lower than target one P ⫽ 180 barg, were identified (See Fig.4). These
results establish the basis for appropriate solutions, intended to fix these problems at early stages of the
project that definitely will be much cheaper, than redesign or reconstruct built pipelines or facilities.
As we can see from Fig. 4 the only problem area with low pressure is in the red circle. As all these lines
has already constructed, therefore the obvious solution is to design looping to reduce pressure losses and
to increase the pressure on target well pads.
Using trial and error approach, we simply find out that the minimal looping requires two pieces of
pipeline, shown in red on Fig. 5: 1) DN ⫽ 250 mm, L ⫽ 5245 m; 2) DN ⫽ 200 mm, L ⫽ 1628 m. The
pressure profiles of WI lines, including proposed loopings, are shown on Fig. 6. As we can see, pressures
on all well pads are higher than the target one P ⫽ 180 barg.
Based on calculations result, we can conclude, that there is no problem, regarding high flow velocity
and erosion.
10 SPE-176569-MS

Figure 8 —Results of pressure calculations in water injection pipelines

Figure 9 —The diagram of problem areas with pressure, lower than target one

As a result of this engineering work, all necessary loopings have been included into Work Plan &
Budget of the company, that will definitely help to save money, comparing to the cost of redesigning and
reconstruction of pipelines at final stages of the project.
The practical example of troubleshooting strategy, presented in this paper, will provide the basic tool
and technique, necessary to assess existing or designed WI pipelines. This strategy gives a basis to make
required changes in the design if it is needed on early stages of the field development. It allows avoiding
bottlenecking and other potential issues with water injection pipelines.
SPE-176569-MS 11

Figure 10 —The diagram of proposed loopings to ensure target pressures on problem well pads

Figure 11—Results of pressure calculations in water injections lines, including new loopings

Conclusion
1. Waterflood surveillance system is formed based on the number of analytical and numerical tools.
List of managing actions is formed and implemented on monthly basis
2. Over 6 months of operations, the number of patterns with insufficient injection replacement have
decreased by 50%.
3. Factors that determine breach between injectivity potential and actual performance were identified.
Program of injection rate increase is composed to address reasons of pattern underperforming.
4. Operations in the areas with high watercut wells allowed to set filtration balance and slow down
the watercut growth thus obtaining oil rate increment.
5. Integrated analysis of geological, geophysical and production data, application of geostaticstical
methods for formation description improved understanding of reservoir framework, its areal and
vertical heterogeneity.
6. Troubleshooting of water injection pipeline network is made, loopings are planned, pipe diameters
12 SPE-176569-MS

for new pads are optimized.

References
1. Danilkin, S.M. Bar type of Markovskaya and Yaraktinskaya oil and gas accumulation zones//Oil
and Gas Geology.-1960 -:.-P. 14 –19.
2. DykstraH. and Parsons R.L., 1950, The Prediction of Waterflood Performance with Variation in
Permeability Profile, Prod. Monthly
3. Hall, H. N., ⬙How to analyze waterflood injection well performance⬙. World Oil, 1963 (October):
p. 253–261
4. Jensen, J.L., Lake, L.W., Corbett, P.W.M., and Goggin D.J., 1997, Statistics for Petroleum
Engineers and Geoscientists, Prentice Hall, NJ,390p
5. Postnikova, O.V. et al. Natural reservoirs of Riphean Vend sedimentary basin of the South
Siberian platform: structure peculiarities and location patterns//Oil and Gas Geology 2010.
6. Vinogradov I.A., Zagorovskiy A.A., Grinchenko V.A., Gordeev Ya.I. Study of desalinization
process when developing saline terrigeneous reservoirs of Verkhnechonskoe field, Oil Industry
Journal 2013 1, pp. 74 –77
7. Don Wolcott Applied waterfloding field development, 2009