SPE 167554

Enhancing Reservoir Surveillance and Management in Mature Depleted

Reservoirs using Reservoir Operating Envelopes: The Sofad Field Case-
study
Adenike Sonde, Rotimi Osho, Kayode Ayeni (SPDC)

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 30 July–1 August 2013.

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
Operating envelopes are used in many industries, including the oil industry, to define appropriate operating boundaries and
limits for production systems. In the oil industry, the boundaries generally include minimum and maximum operating rates,
as well as minimum and maximum operating pressures and temperatures for the different components of the production
system. Today, the use of operating envelopes has been extended to the subsurface (specifically hydrocarbon-bearing
reservoirs) with the aim of identifying optimum limits for production rates and reservoir pressure depletion.

The Sofad field is one of the biggest and most structurally complex oil fields in the Western Niger Delta straddling land,
swamp and shallow offshore. The high offtake rates from the reservoirs, coupled with the high fault density, have inhibited
the response of the otherwise active aquifer especially in the key producing reservoirs. As a result, the key reservoirs have
suffered severe pressure depletion over the years.

Analyses of the historical production/pressure trends of these reservoirs clearly indicate that the reservoir pressures are
generally sensitive to the rates of production from the reservoirs. Thus, it became essential to evaluate the maximum
production rates for these reservoirs in order to manage the reservoir pressure depletion and consequently maximise oil
recovery (pending the execution of the water injection project for pressure maintenance).

This paper presents how the operating envelopes for the reservoirs were designed. It also showcases how the operating
envelopes are being used in ensuring the maintenance of reservoir pressures, which has led to an improvement in the
recovery from these reservoirs over the last 3 years (2010 – 2012).

Introduction/Field Overview
The Sofad field is situated in the Western part of the Niger Delta, covering an area of approximately 20km by 5km. The field
has an elongated NW-SE rollover anticlinal structure with a collapsed crest. It contains a stacked sequence of sand units, with
accumulations straddling land, swamp and shallow offshore. The central part of the field is densely faulted by a conjugate
system of synthetic and antithetic faults.

Sofad was discovered in 1968 and to date, 152 wells have been drilled in the field. The field came on stream in 1970 and
attained a peak production rate of 140,000 bopd in 1974. Sofad contains vast trapped volumes of oil, with the oil initially in
place (STOIIP) estimated over 2.5 Billion Barrels, Ultimate Recovery (UR) of over 1.7 Billion barrels and cumulative
production to date is over 1 Billion barrels. The two largest reservoirs in this field (B5000 and B6000) account for about 60%
of the oil resources in the field.

The oil in Sofad is of medium API gravity (25-35 degrees API) with most of the reservoirs being initially undersaturated. The
initial solution gas-oil-ratios (Rsi’s) for the developed reservoirs vary between 200scf/stb and 450scf/stb. To date, the
producing gas-oil ratios (GORs) are generally between 1 and 2 times the Rsi of the respective reservoir fluid. The withdrawal
from the reservoirs is therefore mainly liquid withdrawal, as free gas production from the reservoirs is minimal.

The Sofad reservoirs generally enjoy moderate to strong aquifer support. However, the high fault density and high
2 SPE 167554

withdrawal rates from the two largest reservoirs (B5000 and B6000) have impeded the activity of the aquifer in these two
reservoirs. This has led to significant pressure depletion and frequent quitting of some of the wells even at relatively low
water cuts of ca. 50%. Pressure maintenance through water injection is currently being studied and evaluated. However, it
was clear that, prior to the implementation of the water injection project, other effective strategies for reservoir pressure
management were required to sustain production and optimise recovery from this field. To meet this objective, the work
discussed in this paper was carried out.

Evaluation of boundary limits for reservoir operating envelopes

Historical production performance has shown that the reservoir drive mechanism in Sofad is predominantly aquifer/water
drive (as illustrated in the Material Balance Energy Plots of the producing reservoirs in Fig 1). However, the high fault
density in the field, coupled with relatively high offtake rates, have inhibited the activity of the aquifer and led to severe
pressure depletion in some of the reservoirs, particularly the B5000 and B6000. Some wells completed on these reservoirs
were quitting, even at relatively low water-cuts, as the reservoir pressures became insufficient to lift the crude at higher
water-cuts. As a result, production from these reservoirs was on the decline and an effective strategy was required to manage
the reservoir pressures before the execution of water injection in the field. To manage the reservoir pressures, the maximum
liquid production rate at which the reservoir pressure is maintained or is not depleted beyond 10% of its initial value, was
evaluated and set as the boundary limit of liquid production rate for each reservoir’s operating envelope. The other boundary
limits for the reservoirs’ operating envelopes are the Minimum and Maximum Pressures within which the reservoir should be
produced.

Methodology for evaluating the Maximum Liquid Production Rates

The maximum liquid production rate was evaluated using:

1. Historical Production/pressure diagnostic plots (as shown in Fig 1)

2. Reservoir models (Material Balance models and 3D Reservoir Simulation models).

1. Historical Production/Pressure Diagnostic Plots:

It has been established for all the reservoirs that the pressure trends are sensitive to the rates of production from the
reservoirs. A plot of the B5000X reservoir pressure and liquid production, for instance, depicts this (Fig 1). Between 1970
and 1979, a rapid increase in the liquid production rates resulted in a corresponding sharp decline in reservoir pressure. This
suggests that during the stated period, the rate of withdrawal from the reservoir was much higher than the rate of aquifer
influx to the reservoir. With a reduction in the reservoir withdrawal rates between 1983 and 1988, the reservoir pressure
remained stable at ca. 1950 psi, which implies that the withdrawal rate from the reservoir during this period was matched by
the aquifer support. It can be observed from Fig 1 that the average liquid production rate, at which the B5000X reservoir
pressure remained stable without any significant decline, is about 40,000b/d. In other words, for the B5000X reservoir, the
aquifer can support and maintain reservoir pressure at a production rate of ca. 40,000b/d from the reservoir.

Similar evaluations have been made for the other producing reservoirs in the field and the plan for managing these reservoirs
in the short-term, pending the availability of water injection, is to limit reservoir production rates to established aquifer
support limits. The results obtained from the historical production/pressure diagnostic plots for all the reservoirs were tested
with the reservoir models to confirm the rates.
SPE 167554 3

Fig 1: Sofad B5000X Production/ Pressure Diagnostic Plot

2. Reservoir Models (Material Balance and 3D Simulation Models)

Calibrated (history-matched) reservoir models were used to make predictions for the purpose of assessing the impact of
different production rates on the reservoir pressures over time. For each reservoir, a range of maximum liquid production
rates was selected from the historical production/pressure diagnostic plot. Prediction runs were then made with the different
liquid production rates to evaluate the effect of production on the reservoir pressure over time. From the model prediction
results, the maximum liquid production rate from the reservoir, at which the reservoir pressure can be maintained or not
depleted beyond 10% of its initial value, was taken as the maximum liquid production rate for pressure management.

For the Sofad B5000X reservoir, for instance, maximum liquid rates of 30,000b/d, 40,000b/d and 45,000b/d were tested with
the calibrated material balance model. The results, as illustrated in Fig 2a-2c, show that the reservoir pressure will be
maintained without any further significant decline if the maximum liquid production rate from the B5000X reservoir does not
exceed 40,000b/d. At a liquid production rate of 45,000b/d, a continuous pressure decline was observed over the forecast
period. The results from the reservoir model therefore support and confirm the evaluation and analysis carried out with the
production/pressure diagnostic plot as stated in the previous section. The maximum liquid rate for the B5000X reservoir for
reservoir pressure management has therefore been taken as 40,000b/d. Similar predictions were made for other producing
reservoirs in the field using their respective reservoir models, and the maximum liquid rate obtained for each reservoir has
been set as the boundary limit for the reservoir’s operating envelope. Table 1 summarises the results obtained for the
reservoirs.
4 SPE 167554

Fig 2a: Sofad B5000X Model Prediction results with a maximum liquid rate of 30,000b/d

Fig 2b: Sofad B5000X Model Prediction results with a maximum liquid rate of 40,000b/d
SPE 167554 5

Fig 2c: Sofad B5000X Model Prediction results with a maximum liquid rate of 45,000b/d

Recommended Maximum Liquid

Reservoir Rate (BPD) /
Operating Envelope Boundary
B3000X 9,000

B5000X 40,000

B6000X 6,000

B8000X 8,000

B9000X 7,000

B9400X 3,000

C2000X 11,000

C5500X 3,000

Table 1: Maximum Liquid Withdrawal Rates Obtained from Reservoir Models and Production/Pressure Diagnostic Plots
6 SPE 167554

Methodology for evaluating the Maximum and Minimum Reservoir Pressures

The minimum pressure at which each reservoir should be produced was also evaluated based on the strategy for managing
the reservoir pressure depletion in the field. Based on the DPR guideline on reservoir pressure depletion, a reservoir with
above 5.0 MMstb reserves and above 10% pressure depletion should not be produced without pressure maintenance. Hence,
for each reservoir, the minimum pressure limit is based on a 10% depletion from its initial reservoir pressure. For reservoirs
which have above 10% pressure depletion already (i.e. B5000X and B6000X), the minimum pressure limit has been set at the
current reservoir pressure. In other words, the pressure must not be depleted above its current level prior to the completion of
the water injection project.

In evaluating the maximum pressure limits, the leak-off pressures determined from Leak-Off Tests (LOT) which were carried
out during drilling campaigns, were used. Table 2 below summarises the minimum and maximum pressure limits obtained
for the reservoirs.

Minimum Pressure Maximum Pressure

Initial Pressure
Reservoir limit limit (LOT)
(psi)
(psi) (psi)

B3000X 2130 1917 2243

B5000X 2260 1920 2408

B6000X 2260 1920 2408

B8000X 2350 2115 2571

B9000X 2360 2124 2571

B9400X 2360 2124 2571

C2000X 2460 2214 2630

C5500X 2610 2349 2855

Table 2: Minimum and Maximum Pressure Limits for the producing reservoirs

Monitoring Reservoir Production and Pressure Performance against the Operating Envelope limits
A simple visualisation tool was created with Microsoft Excel to help monitor the production and pressure performance of
each producing reservoir against the reservoir’s operating envelope limits or boundaries. The primary objective of the
visualisation plot was to help ensure that the current pressure and production from each reservoir is within the operating
envelope limits, which were evaluated as discussed in the previous sections. Figs 3a and 3b below show the operating
envelopes for the Sofad B3000X and B5000X reservoirs as examples. The operating envelope boundaries (minimum and
maximum reservoir pressures as well as minimum and maximum liquid production rates) are set and remain constant in the
operating envelope while the current pressure and production data (i.e. the current operating point) are updated as new
pressure and production data become available for each reservoir. The operating envelope therefore acts as a simple
surveillance tool for monitoring and ensuring that the reservoir pressure and production do not go beyond the limits set for
reservoir pressure management. When the liquid production from a reservoir exceeds the maximum liquid rate limit, one or
more of the high water-cut wells producing from that reservoir have to be beaned back to reduce the total liquid production
from the reservoir and ensure that it is within the operating envelope for the reservoir.
SPE 167554 7

Fig 3a: Sofad B3000X Reservoir Operating Envelope

Fig 3b: Sofad B5000X Reservoir Operating Envelope

8 SPE 167554

Discussion of Results: Impact on Production and Recovery of Reservoirs

Fig 4 below summarises the benefits of enforcing reservoir pressure management with the use of operating envelopes in the
Sofad field. Before the implementation of this pressure management strategy which was enhanced with the use of reservoir
operating envelopes, reservoir pressures were on the decline as illustrated for the B5000X reservoir in Fig 4. Production was
also on the decline because a number of wells producing from these depleted reservoirs were quitting frequently as the
reservoir pressures became insufficient to lift the crude. With the application of the pressure management strategy and
reservoir operating envelopes, the reservoir pressures have remained stable with no further significant decline (as shown in
Fig 4 for the B5000X). Production has also been maintained with more wells producing continuously and without the
frequent cessation in production due to reservoir pressure depletion.

There has also been a marked increase in the Developed Ultimate Recoveries (DURs) evaluated for the Sofad reservoirs. This
is because in many mature fields, the Developed Ultimate Recovery (DUR) of producing wells and reservoirs are mainly
evaluated using Decline Curve Analysis (DCA), which is based on production performance. Hence, an improvement in the
production performance of wells will translate to an increase in the DURs evaluated for the wells and consequently, an
increase in the total DURs evaluated for reservoirs.

Fig 4: Sofad B5000X Reservoir Production/Pressure Performance before and after the implementation of operating envelopes

Conclusion
The operating envelopes designed for the reservoirs of Sofad have enhanced both reservoir surveillance and reservoir
management in the field. Also, oil production and recovery from the depleted reservoirs have greatly improved as a result of
a better reservoir monitoring and management system.

In summary, a simple strategy for reservoir pressure management has been used to arrest both pressure and production
SPE 167554 9

decline in the depleted reservoirs of a mature field, prior to the execution of water injection (which is the long-term pressure
maintenance scheme for the field).

Acknowledgements
The authors will like to thank the management of Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), particularly the
Development Leadership team, for the permission granted to present this paper.

References
1. Dake, L.P.: “Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering”, ELSEVIER (1956).
2. Frick, T: “Petroleum Engineering Handbook”, SPE AIME (1962).
3. Sonde, A. Et al: “Integrated 3D Modelling in a structurally complex brown field: A foundation for improved reservoir
management and optimisation of further development” SPE 150777 (2011).