Water Control

Today, oil companies produce an average of three barrels of

water for each barrel of oil from their depleting reservoirs.
Every year more than $40 billion is spent dealing with unwanted
water. In many cases, innovative water-control technology can
lead to significant cost reduction and improved oil production.

Bill Bailey
Mike Crabtree
Jeb Tyrie
Aberdeen, Scotland

Jon Elphick
Cambridge, England

Fikri Kuchuk
Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Christian Romano
Caracas, Venezuela

Leo Roodhart
Shell International Exploration and Production
The Hague, The Netherlands

For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Andrew

Acock, Houston, Texas, USA; Kate Bell and Anchala
Ramasamy, BP Amoco Exploration, Aberdeen, Scotland;
Leo Burdylo, Keng Seng Chang and Peter Hegeman, Sugar
Land, Texas; Alison Goligher, Montrouge, France; Douglas
Hupp, Anchorage, Alaska, USA; Lisa Silipigno, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, USA; and David Wylie, Aberdeen.
FloView, FrontSim, GHOST (Gas Holdup Optical Sensor
Tool), MDT (Modular Formation Dynamics Tester), NODAL,
PatchFlex, PLT (Production Logging Tool), PosiSet, PS
PLATFORM (Production Services Platform), RST (Reservoir
Saturation Tool), SqueezeCRETE, TPHL (three-phase fluid
holdup log), USI (UltraSonic Imager) and WFL (Water
Flow Log) are marks of Schlumberger. Excel is a mark of
Microsoft Corporation. MaraSEAL is a mark of Marathon Oil
Corporation. PrecisionTree is a mark of Palisade Corporation.

30 Oilfield Review
 Processing Treating
Demulsifiers/corrosion Cleaning
Facility debottlenecking Discharge

Water shutoff
Given the worldwide daily water production of Scale and hydrate control
roughly 210 million barrels [33.4 million m3] of Corrosion inhibitor
water accompanying every 75 million barrels ate

W
r

oil
[11.9 million m3] of oil, many oil companies could

Dr y

Oil and water

almost be called water companies. Water-
handling costs are high—estimates range from
Profile modification
5 to more than 50 cents per barrel of water. In Water diversion
a well producing oil with an 80% water cut, the Fluid monitoring
Gel treatments
cost of handling water can be as high as $4 per Permeability modifiers
barrel of oil produced. In some parts of the North Damage removal

Sea, water production is increasing as fast as

reservoir oil rates are declining.
Water affects every stage of oilfield life from
exploration—the oil-water contact is a crucial fac-
tor for determining oil-in-place—through develop- > The water cycle. The transport
ment, production, and finally to abandonment of water through the field starts
(below). As oil is produced from a reservoir, water with flow in the reservoir leading
to production, and then surface
from an underlying aquifer or from injectors even- processing. Finally, the water is
tually will be mixed and produced along with the disposed of at the surface or
injected for disposal or pressure
maintenance.

Reservoir containing water, oil and gas. oil. This movement of water flowing through
The figure shows the fluid distribution in a reservoir, into production tubing and surface-
Gas and water a typical reservoir before production or
injection begins. Above the free-oil level,
processing facilities, and eventually extracted for
Oil, gas and water water saturation will be at its irreducible disposal or injected for maintaining reservoir pres-
value. The transition zone between the sure, is called the ‘water cycle’ (above).
free-oil and free-water levels is character- Oil producers are looking for economic ways
Oil and water ized by a gradual increase in water satura-
tion to 100%. In this zone, both oil and to improve production efficiency, and water-con-
water are partially mobile. The thickness of trol services are proving to be one of the fastest
the transition zone depends on factors and least costly routes to reduce operating costs
such as pore size, capillary pressure and and improve hydrocarbon production simultane-
wettability. There is a transition zone
Free-oil between the hydrocarbon and water ously. The economics of water production
level throughout the water cycle depend on a number
layers where water and oil saturation vary.
In general, low-permeability rocks will of factors such as total flow rate, production
Free-water have thicker transition zones. rates, fluid properties like oil gravity and water
level
salinity, and finally the ultimate disposal method
for the water produced. Operational expenses,
Water

Spring 2000 31
including lifting, separation, filtering, pumping
and reinjection, add to the overall costs (below).
In addition, water-disposal costs can vary enor-
mously. Reports vary from 10 cents per barrel
when the unwanted water is released into the
ocean offshore to over $1.50 per barrel when
hauled away by trucks on land. Although the
1.0
potential savings from water control alone are B WOR economic limit
significant, the greatest value comes from the
potential increase in oil production and recovery. C
Managing the cycle of water production, sep-
aration downhole or at the surface, and disposal

WOR
involves a wide range of oilfield services. These
include data acquisition and diagnostics using A
downhole sensors; production logging and water
analysis for detecting water problems; reservoir
modeling to characterize flow; and various tech- 0
nologies to eliminate water problems such as Oil production, bbl
D
downhole separation and injection, chemical and
Added recovery
mechanical shutoff, and surface water separa-
tion and production facilities.
> Water control to increase well productivity and potential reserves. As most wells
In this article, we focus on the detection and
mature, the water/oil ratio (WOR) increases with production (A) due to increasing
control of excess water production. First, we amounts of water. Eventually, the cost of handling the water approaches the value of
review the many ways in which water can enter oil being produced and the WOR “economic limit” (B). Water-control methodology
the wellbore. Then, we describe measurements and technology reduce the well’s water production (C) enabling continued economic
oil production. Water control results in increased economic recovery in the well (D).
and analysis to identify these problem types.
Finally, we examine treatments and solutions.
Case studies demonstrate applications in individ-
ual wells, on a field scale and in surface facilities.

20,000 B/D 50,000 B/D 100,000 B/D 200,000 B/D Average

Lifting Capex/Opex $0.044 5.28% $0.044 7.95% $0.044 9.29% $0.044 10.25% $0.044 7.69%
Utilities $0.050 6.38% $0.054 9.62% $0.054 11.24% $0.054 12.40% $0.054 9.30%
Separation Capex/Opex $0.087 10.36% $0.046 8.27% $0.035 7.24% $0.030 6.82% $0.049 8.55%
Utilities $0.002 0.30% $0.003 0.45% $0.003 0.52% $0.003 0.58% $0.003 0.43%
Chemical $0.034 4.09% $0.034 6.16% $0.034 7.20% $0.034 7.94% $0.034 5.95%
De-oiling Capex/Opex $0.147 17.56% $0.073 12.99% $0.056 11.64% $0.046 10.58% $0.081 13.92%
Chemicals $0.040 4.81% $0.041 7.25% $0.041 8.47% $0.041 9.34% $0.041 7.00%
Filtering Capex/Opex $0.147 17.47% $0.068 12.18% $0.047 9.85% $0.030 6.87% $0.073 12.63%
Utilities $0.012 1.48% $0.010 1.79% $0.010 2.09% $0.010 2.31% $0.011 1.84%
Pumping Capex/Opex $0.207 24.66% $0.122 21.89% $0.091 19.06% $0.079 18.15% $0.125 21.61%
Utilities $0.033 3.99% $0.034 6.01% $0..034 7.03% $0.034 7.75% $0.034 5.81%
Injecting Capex/Opex $0.030 3.62% $0.030 5.45% $0.030 6.37% $0.030 7.02% $0.030 5.27%
Total cost/bbl $0.842 100% $0.559 100% $0.478 100% $0.434 100% $0.578 100%
Total chemicals $0.074 8.90% $0.075 13.41% $0.075 15.67% $0.075 17.28% $0.075 12.96%
Total utilities $0.102 12.16% $0.010 17.87% $0.100 20.88% $0.100 23.03% $0.101 17.38%
Total wells $0.074 8.89% $0.075 13.40% $0.075 15.66% $0.075 17.27% $0.075 12.95%
Surface facilities $0.589 70.05% $0.309 55.33% $0.227 47.80% $0.184 42.41% $0.328 56.71%

Surface processing Wells, producers Wells, injectors

Separation 0.0025 kw/bbl 1 Well 7000 ft $1,000,000.00 Drill and complete 1 Well 7000 ft $600,000.00 Drill and complete
Lifting 1.92 kw/bbl Recompletion 300,000 Per completion Recompletion 200,000 Per completion
Injection 1.2 kw/bbl Total 1 well $1,600,000.00 3 Completions Total 1 well $1,000,000.00 3 Completions
Cost $0.028 Per kw-hr Cost for water $400,000.00 Total injected 32,850,000 3 Completions
Total production 1,000,000 bbl @ 90% water cut Cost for water injection $0.03 $/bbl
Total water 9,000,000 bbl @ 90% water cut
Cost for water lift $0.04 $/bbl

> Water-cycle cost. The table shows typical estimated water-handling costs per barrel—capital and operating expenses (Capex and Opex), utilities and
chemicals—lifting, separation, de-oiling, filtering, pumping and injection for fluid production varying from 20,000 to 200,000 B/D [3181 to 31,810 m3/d].

32 Oilfield Review
 Injector Water front Producer

Water Sources Only water

Water is present in every oil field and is the most

Increasing time
Oil and water
abundant fluid in the field.1 No operator wants to
produce water, but some waters are better than Only Oil
others. When it comes to producing oil, a key
Only Oil
issue is the distinction between sweep, good (or
acceptable), and bad (or excess) water.
“Sweep” water—Sweep water comes from > Good and bad water. Good water needs to be produced with oil. It cannot
either an injection well or an active aquifer that be shut off without shutting off oil. Downhole separation may be a solution.
is contributing to the sweeping of oil from the Bad water does not help production, and it depletes pressure.
reservoir. The management of this water is a
Producer
vital part of reservoir management and can be Simulating water flow in a reservoir.
a determining factor in well productivity and the O il
FrontSim streamline reservoir simulation
ultimate reserves.2 software is ideal for demonstrating what
happens to fluids flowing in a reservoir.
“Good” water—This is water that is produced The streamlines represent the flow of
into the wellbore at a rate below the water/oil water from injector to producer. The
ratio (WOR) economic limit (previous page, top).3 It simulator requires geological, structural

Oil
er
is an inevitable consequence of water flow and fluid information. The plot shows one
Wat

quadrant of a uniform five-spot injection

through the reservoir, and it cannot be shut off pattern where the water from the most
without losing reserves. Good-water production direct streamline is the first to break
occurs when the flow of oil and water is commin- through to the producer. The water from
gled through the formation matrix. The fractional r
these streamlines is considered good
te water because it cannot be shut off
water flow is dictated by the natural mixing behav- Wa
without decreasing oil production.
ior that gradually increases the WOR (top right). Injector
Another form of acceptable water production
is caused by converging flow lines into the well-
Downhole separator.
bore (middle right). For example, in one quadrant Separating water down-
of a five-spot injection pattern, an injector feeds hole reduces the costs of
a producer. Flow from the injector can be charac- lifting the excess water.
terized by an infinite series of flowlines—the Typical downhole separa-
tors are 50% efficient. The
shortest is a straight line from injector to pro- excess water is injected
ducer and the longest follows the no-flow bound- Production into another formation.
aries from injector to producer. Water zone
breakthrough occurs initially along the shortest
Oil
flowline, while oil is still produced along slower Oil and some
water out
flowlines. This water must be considered good
since it is not possible to shut off selected flow-
Reservoir
lines while allowing others to produce. fluid in
Since good water, by definition, produces oil
with it, water management should seek to maxi-
mize its production. To minimize associated
water costs, the water should be removed as
early as possible, ideally with a downhole sepa-
rator (bottom right). These devices, coupled with Water out
electrical submersible pumps, allow up to 50% of Injection
the water to be separated and injected downhole Water
zone
to avoid lifting and surface-separation costs.

1. Kuchuk F, Sengul M and Zeybek M: “Oilfield Water: 3. Water/oil ratio (WOR) is the water production rate (for example, a WOR of 1 implies a water cut of 50%).
A Vital Resource,” Middle East Well Evaluation Review divided by oil production rate. It ranges from 0 (100% oil) The WOR economic limit is the WOR at which the cost
22 (November 22, 1999): 4-13. to infinite (100% water). Also commonly used are the of the water treatment and disposal is equal to the profit
2. Kuchuk F, Patra SK, Narasimham JL, Ramanan S and terms ‘water cut’ or ‘fractional water flow’ defined as from the oil. Production beyond this limit gives a negative
Banerji S: “Water Watching,” Middle East Well water production rate divided by total production rate as cash flow. This can be approximated by the net profit
Evaluation Review 22 (November 22, 1999): 14-23; and a percentage or fraction, respectively. Correspondence from producing an incremental unit volume of oil divided
also Kuchuk F and Sengul M: “The Challenge of Water between these measures can be easily calculated by the cost of an incremental unit volume of water.
Control,” Middle East Well Evaluation Review 22
(November 22, 1999): 24-43.

Spring 2000 33
 “Bad” water—The remainder of this article
deals principally with the problems of excess Injector Producer
water. Bad water can be defined as water that is
produced into the wellbore and produces no oil or
insufficient oil to pay for the cost of handling the
water—water that is produced above the WOR
economic limit. In individual wells, the source of
most bad-water problems can be classified as one
of ten basic types. The classification of water
problem types presented here is simplistic—many
variations and combinations can occur—but it is
useful for providing a common terminology.4 > Watered-out layer without crossflow.

Water Problems
The ten basic problem types vary from easy to water flow. The main solution is the use of shutoff OWC moves significantly past the top of the plug.
solve to the most difficult to solve. fluids, which may be either high-strength squeeze In vertical wells, this problem is the first in our
Casing, tubing or packer leaks—Leaks through cement, resin-based fluids placed in the annulus, classification system that extends beyond the
casing, tubing or packers allow water from non- or lower strength gel-based fluids placed in the for- local wellbore environment.
oil-productive zones to enter the production string mation to stop flow into the annulus. Placement is In horizontal wells, any wellbore or near-
(below left). Detection of problems and application critical and typically is achieved with coiled tubing. wellbore solution must extend far enough uphole
of solutions are highly dependent on the well con- Moving oil-water contact—A uniform oil- or downhole from the water-producing interval to
figuration. Basic production logs such as fluid den- water contact moving up into a perforated zone minimize horizontal flow of water past the treat-
sity, temperature and spinner may be sufficient to in a well during normal water-driven production ment and delay subsequent water breakthrough.
diagnose these problems. In more complex wells, can lead to unwanted water production (below Alternatively, a sidetrack can be considered once
WFL Water Flow Logs or multiphase fluid logging right). This happens wherever there is very low the WOR becomes economically intolerable.5
such as the TPHL three-phase fluid holdup log can vertical permeability. Since the flow area is large Watered-out layer without crossflow—A
be valuable. Tools with electrical probes, such as and the rate at which the contact rises is low, it common problem with multilayer production
the FlowView tool, can identify small amounts of can even occur at extremely low intrinsic vertical occurs when a high-permeability zone with a
water in the production flow. Solutions typically permeabilities (less than 0.01 mD). In wells with flow barrier (such as a shale bed) above and
include squeezing shutoff fluids and mechanical higher vertical permeability (Kv > 0.01 Kh), coning below is watered out (above). In this case, the
shutoff using plugs, cement and packers. Patches and other problems discussed below are more water source may be from an active aquifer or a
can also be used. This problem type is a prime likely. In fact, this problem type could be consid- waterflood injection well. The watered-out layer
candidate for low-cost, inside-casing water shut- ered a subset of coning, but the coning tendency typically has the highest permeability. In the
off technology. is so low that near-wellbore shutoff is effective. absence of reservoir crossflow, this problem is
Channel flow behind casing—Failed primary Diagnosis cannot be based solely on known entry easily solved by the application of rigid, shutoff
cementing can connect water-bearing zones to the of water at the bottom of the well, since other fluids or mechanical shutoff in either the injector
pay zone (below middle). These channels allow problems also cause this behavior. In a vertical or producer. Choosing between placement of a
water to flow behind casing in the annulus. A sec- well, this problem can be solved easily by aban- shutoff fluid—typically using coiled tubing—or a
ondary cause is the creation of a ‘void’ behind the doning the well from the bottom using a mechan- mechanical shutoff system depends on knowing
casing as sand is produced. Temperature logs or ical system such as a cement plug or bridge plug which interval is watered out. Effective selective
oxygen-activation-based WFL logs can detect this set on wireline. Retreatment is required if the fluids, discussed later, can be used in this case to
avoid the cost of logging and selective place-
ment. The absence of crossflow is dependent on
the continuity of the permeability barrier.
Horizontal wells that are completed in just
one layer are not subject to this type of problem.
Water problems in highly inclined wells com-
pleted in multiple layers can be treated in the
same way as vertical wells.

> Casing, tubing or > Flow behind casing. > Moving oil-water contact.
packer leaks.

34 Oilfield Review
 Injector Fault

Producer

Fault

> Fractures or faults between an injector and > Fractures or faults from a water layer > Fractures or faults from a water layer
a producer. (vertical well). (horizontal well).

Fractures or faults between injector and Fractures or faults from a water layer— faults or fractures that intersect an aquifer
producer—In naturally fractured formations Water can be produced from fractures that inter- (above right). As discussed above, pumping flow-
under waterflood, injection water can rapidly sect a deeper water zone (above middle). These ing gel may help address this problem.
break through into producing wells (above). This fractures may be treated with a flowing gel; this Coning or cusping—Coning occurs in a verti-
is especially common when the fracture system is particularly successful where the fractures do cal well when there is an OWC near perforations
is extensive or fissured and can be confirmed not contribute to oil production. Treatment vol- in a formation with a relatively high vertical per-
with the use of interwell tracers and pressure umes must be large enough to shut off the frac- meability (below). The maximum rate at which oil
transient testing.6 Tracer logs also can be used to tures far away from the well. can be produced without producing water
quantify the fracture volume, which is used for However, the design engineer is faced with through a cone, called the critical coning rate, is
the treatment design. The injection of a flowing three difficulties. First, the treatment volume is often too low to be economic. One approach,
gel at the injector can reduce water production difficult to determine because the fracture volume which is sometimes inappropriately proposed, is
without adversely affecting oil production from is unknown. Second, the treatment may shut off to place a layer of gel above the equilibrium
the formation. When crosslinked flowing gels are oil-producing fractures; here, an overflush treat- OWC. However, this will rarely stop coning and
used, they can be bullheaded since they have ment maintains productivity near the wellbore. requires a large volume of gel to significantly
limited penetration in the matrix and so selec- Third, if a flowing gel is used, it must be carefully reduce the WOR. For example, to double the crit-
tively flow in the fractures. Water shutoff is usu- tailored to resist flowback after the treatment. In ical coning rate, an effective gel radius of at least
ally the best solution for this problem. cases of localized fractures, it may be appropriate 50 feet [15 m] typically is required. However, eco-
Wells with severe fractures or faults often to shut them off near the wellbore, especially if nomically placing gel this deep into the formation
exhibit extreme loss of drilling fluids. If a conduc- the well is cased and cemented. Similarly, a is difficult. Smaller volume treatments usually
tive fault and associated fractures are expected degradation in production is caused when result in rapid water re-breakthrough unless the
during drilling, pumping flowing gel into the well hydraulic fractures penetrate a water layer. gel fortuitously connects with shale streaks.
may help solve both the drilling problem and the However, in such cases the problem and environ- A good alternative to gel placement is to drill
subsequent water production and poor sweep ment are usually better understood and solutions, one or more lateral drainholes near the top of the
problems—particularly in formations with low such as shutoff fluids, are easier to apply. formation to take advantage of the greater dis-
matrix permeability. In many carbonate reservoirs, the fractures tance from the OWC and decreased drawdown,
In horizontal wells, the same problem can are generally steep and tend to occur in clusters both of which reduce the coning effect.
exist when the well intersects one or more faults that are spaced at large distances from each In horizontal wells, this problem may be
that are conductive or have associated conduc- other—especially in tight dolomitic zones. Thus, referred to as duning or cusping. In such wells, it
tive fractures. the probability of these fractures intersecting a may be possible to at least retard cusping with
4. Elphick J and Seright R: “A Classification of Water
vertical wellbore is low. However, these fractures near-wellbore shutoff that extends sufficiently
Problem Types,” presented at the Petroleum Network are often observed in horizontal wells where up- and downhole as in the case of a rising OWC.
Education Conference’s 3rd Annual International
Conference on Reservoir Conformance Profile
water production is often through conductive
Modification, Water and Gas Shutoff, Houston, Texas,
USA, August 6-8, 1997.
5. Hill D, Neme E, Ehlig-Economides C and Mollinedo M:
“Reentry Drilling Gives New Life to Aging Fields,”
Oilfield Review 8, no. 3 (Autumn 1996): 4-17.
6. A fissure is an extensive crack, break or fracture
in a rock.

> Coning or cusping.

Spring 2000 35
 Poor areal sweep—Edge water from an
aquifer or injection during waterflooding through a
pay zone often leads to poor areal sweep (right). because of crossflow away from the wellbore. It is

Aquifer
Areal permeability anisotropy typically causes this vital to determine if there is crossflow in the reser-
problem, which is particularly severe in sand chan- voir since this alone distinguishes between the
nel deposits. The solution is to divert injected two problems. When the problem occurs without
water away from the pore space, which has crossflow, it can be easily treated. With crossflow,
already been swept by water. This requires a large successful treatment is less likely. However, in
treatment volume or continuous viscous flood, rare cases, it may be possible to place deep-pene-
both of which are generally uneconomic. Infill trating gel economically in the permeable thief
drilling is often successful in improving recovery in layer if the thief layer is thin and has high perme-
this situation, although lateral drainholes may be ability compared with the oil zone. Even under
used to access unswept oil more economically. these optimal conditions, careful engineering is
Horizontal wells may extend through different required before committing to a treatment. In
permeability and pressure zones within the same > Poor areal sweep. many cases, a solution is to drill one or more lat-
layer, causing poor areal sweep. Alternatively, eral drainholes to access the undrained layers.
water may break through to one part of the well sweeping more oil before gravity segregation Horizontal wells completed in just one layer
simply because of horizontal proximity to the again dominates. At the producer there is local are not subject to this type of problem. If a highly
water source. In either case, it may be possible coning and, just as for the coning case described inclined well is completed in multiple layers,
to control water by near-wellbore shutoff suffi- earlier, gel treatments are unlikely to provide last- then this problem occurs in the same way as in a
ciently up- and downhole from the water. ing results. Lateral drainholes may be effective in vertical well.
Gravity-segregated layer—In a thick reservoir accessing the unswept oil. Foamed viscous-flood Knowing the specific water-control problem is
layer with good vertical permeability, gravity seg- fluids may also improve the vertical sweep. essential to treating it. The first four problems
regation—sometimes called water under-run— In horizontal wells, gravity segregation can are relatively easily controlled in or near the
can result in unwanted water entry into a occur when the wellbore is placed near the bot- wellbore. The next two problems—fractures
producing well (below). The water, either from an tom of the pay zone, or when the local critical between injectors and producers, or fractures
aquifer or waterflood, slumps downward in the coning rate is exceeded. from a water layer—require placement of deeper
permeable formation and sweeps only the lower Watered-out layer with crossflow—Water penetrating gels into the fractures or faults. The
part of the reservoir. An unfavorable oil-water crossflow can occur in high-permeability layers last four problems do not lend themselves to sim-
mobility ratio can make the problem worse. The that are not isolated by impermeable barriers ple and inexpensive near-wellbore solutions, and
problem is further exacerbated in formations with (below right). Water production through a highly require completion or production changes as part
sedimentary textures that become finer upward, permeable layer with crossflow is similar to the of the reservoir management strategy. Any oper-
since viscous effects along with gravity segrega- problem of a watered-out layer without crossflow, ator wishing to achieve effective, low-risk, rapid
tion encourage flow at the bottom of the formation. but differs in that there is no barrier to stop cross- payout water shutoff should initially concentrate
Any treatment in the injector aimed at shutting off flow in the reservoir. In these cases, attempts to on applying proven technology to the first six
the lower perforations has only a marginal effect in modify either the production or injection profile problem types.
near the wellbore are doomed to be short-lived

Injector Producer Injector Producer

> Gravity-segregated layer. > Watered-out layer with crossflow.

36 Oilfield Review
 WOR economic limit

Log WOR
Well Diagnostics for Water Control
In the past, water control was thought of as sim-
ply a plug and cement operation, or a gel treat-
ment in a well. The main reason for the industry’s
failure to consistently control water has been a
lack of understanding of the different problems Cumulative oil, bbl
and the consequent application of inappropriate
solutions. This is demonstrated by the number of
> Recovery plot. The recovery plot shows the increasing trend in water/oil
technical papers discussing the treatments and
ratio with production. If the extrapolated WOR reaches the economic limit
results with little or no reference to the geology, when the cumulative oil produced reaches the expected recoverable
reservoir or water-control problem. The key to reserves, then the water being produced is considered good water.
water control is diagnostics—to identify the spe-
cific water problem at hand. Well diagnostics are
used in three ways:
• to screen wells that are suitable candidates for Recovery plot—The recovery plot is a Production history plot—This plot is a log-log
water control semilog plot of WOR against cumulative oil pro- plot of oil and water rates against time (below
• to determine the water problem so that a suit- duction (above). The production trend can be ex- left). Good candidates for water control usually
able water-control method can be selected trapolated to the WOR economic limit to show an increase in water production and a
• to locate the water entry point in the well so determine the oil production that will be decrease in oil production starting at about the
that a treatment can be correctly placed. achieved if no water-control action is taken. If the same time.
When a reliable production history is avail- extrapolated production is approximately equal Decline-curve analysis—This is a semilog
able, it often contains a wealth of information to the expected reserves for a well, then the well plot of oil production rate versus cumulative oil
that can help diagnose water problems. Several is producing acceptable water, and no water con- (below). A straight-line curve can be expected for
different analytical techniques using information, trol is needed. If this value is much less than the normal depletion. An increased decline may indi-
such as water/oil ratios, production data and log- expected recoverable reserves, the well is pro- cate a problem other than water, such as severe
ging measurements, have been developed to dis- ducing unacceptable water and remedial action pressure depletion or damage buildup.
tinguish between the different sources of should be considered if there are sufficient
unacceptable water. reserves to pay for intervention.

10,000 1000

Oil
Oil and water production rate, B/D

1000
100
Oil flow rate
Barrels per day

100
10

Water flow rate

10
1

1 Water
0.1
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
0.1 Cumulative oil, bbl
0 10 100 1000 10,000
Time, days > Decline curve. Any sudden change in the slope of the usual
straight-line decline in oil production rate is a warning that excess
> Production history plot. A time, days plot of the water and oil flow
water, as well as other problems, may be affecting normal production.
rates against time can be helpful in identifying water problems. Any
sudden simultaneous change indicating increased water with a
reduction in oil is a signal that remediation might be needed.

Spring 2000 37
 100 Diagnostic plots—A diagnostic log-log plot
WOR
of WOR versus time can be used to help deter-
mine the specific problem type by making com-
parisons with known behavior patterns (left).
10 Three basic signatures distinguish between dif-
ferent water breakthrough mechanisms: open
WOR

flow through faults, fractures, or channel flow

behind casing; edgewater flow or a moving OWC;
1.0 and coning problems.7 Edgewater flow interpre-
tations have been constructed from numerical
simulation and field experience.8 The time-
derivative of the WOR also can be used, but the
0.1 uncertainty or noisy nature of field measure-
100 ments generally limits its application. The inter-
pretation engineer can learn to recognize the
10 many variations in these profiles and minimize
the problem of nonuniqueness, when combined
WOR
1 with other data.
The usefulness of WOR diagnostic plots in
WOR

0.1 determining multilayer water encroachment is

illustrated by an example in a field operated by a
0.01 major North Sea operating company. A medium-
size reservoir with a moderate-to-high energy
WOR' shoreface structure had been heavily bioturbated,
0.001
giving rise to substantial permeability variations
0.0001 (next page, top). No significant shale barriers were
present, and the 360-ft [110-m] thick reservoir
100
from X590 to X950 ft [X180 to X290 m] gently
dipped into an aquifer. The edges of the reservoir
10
WOR were bounded by sealing faults and truncated by
an unconformity. A vertical well was perforated
1
across 165 ft [50 m] in the middle of this unit. No
OWC or gas-oil contacts (GOC) were present in
WOR

0.1
the reservoir.
The WOR-diagnostic plot generated from
0.01
monthly well-test data shows the effect of the per-
WOR' meability variation in the reservoir strata (next
0.001 page, bottom). The plot illustrates watering-out of
high-permeability layers, which contribute to
0.0001 crossflow in the reservoir. The ratio of break-
1 10 100 1000 10,000
through times (1800:2400:2800) gives an indication
Time, days

> Diagnostic-plot profiles characterizing water breakthrough mecha-

nisms. An open flow path (top) shows a very rapid increase. This profile
indicates flow through a fault, fracture or a channel behind casing,
which can occur at any time during the well history. Edgewater flow
(middle) generally shows a rapid increase at breakthrough followed by
a straight-line curve. For multiple layers, the line may have a stair-step
shape depending on layer permeability contrasts. A gradual increase
(bottom) in the WOR indicates the buildup of a water cone early in the
well’s life. It normally levels off between a WOR of 1 and 10. The slope
of WOR decreases. After the water cone stabilizes, the WOR curve
begins to look more like that for edge flow. The magnitude of the slope,
WOR’, is shown in red in the two lower profiles.

38 Oilfield Review
 X590
of the permeability ratios in these layers. The
Wellbore cumulative oil produced and the relative perme-
X680 ability-height products of the layers might be used
Perforations to estimate the remaining reserves in the lower
Measured depth, ft

permeability parts of the formation from X590 to

X770 X670 ft [X204 m].
The observed WOR response shows that lay-
ers with higher permeabilities have watered out.
X860 Although there is no direct evidence of vertical
connection between these layers, an understand-
X950
ing of the depositional environment and the
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 impact of bioturbation can help resolve this
Horizontal permeability, mD issue. Some communication between the high-
> Horizontal permeability variations in a North Sea reservoir. permeability layers is likely, as well as possible
Significant permeability variation results in effective layer vertical communication within the remaining low-
isolation, thereby encouraging preferential flow along high- permeability zone. Any near-wellbore attempt to
permeability layers. The well is perforated in the middle section
of the reservoir.
control water from the high-permeability layers
will depend on vertical isolation over a large
areal extent between the remaining reserves
above X670 ft and the watered-out layers below.
10
This can be confirmed with MDT Modular
Formation Dynamics Tester measurements of
1.0 layer pressures, vertical interference testing,
4 shale correlations and production logs.
2 3 Shut-in and choke-back analysis—The pro-
WOR

0.1 duction history of most wells includes periods of

choke-back or shut-in. Analysis of the fluctuating
1
WOR can provide valuable clues to the problem
0.01 type. Water-entry problems, such as coning or a
single fracture intersecting a deeper water layer
will lead to a lower WOR during choke-back or
0.001
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 after shut-in. Conversely, fractures or a fault
Production time, days intersecting an overlying water layer has the
> Diagnostic plot from monthly well-test data. The plot shows how opposite effect. Such systems are not stable
aquifer water breaks through at about 1800 days (point 1) with a over geologic time but certainly can be induced
sharp increase in WOR corresponding to a sudden water satura- during production.
tion change at the flood front. This breakthrough is most likely to
be from the highest permeability layer. The WOR gradually rises 7. Chan KS: “Water Control Diagnostic Plots,” paper
SPE 30775, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
until 2100 days as normal for edgewater flow. The water inflow Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA,
stabilizes from point 2 indicating that the layer is virtually watered October 22-25, 1995.
out, leading to a constant WOR. This value suggests that the first 8. Yortsos YC, Youngmin C, Zhengming Y and Shah PC:
layer to break through contributes approximately 14% of the total “Analysis and Interpretation of Water/Oil Ratio in Water-
permeability-height product—the key formation factor determining floods,” SPE Journal 4, no. 4 (December 1999): 413-424.
the flow rate. At 2400 days (point 3), the breakthrough of water is
seen through the interbedded high-permeability layers. The curve
appears to be less steep at this breakthrough because the WOR
is starting at a higher value. At the end of this period, the WOR is
approximately 0.24, suggesting that 10% of the permeability-
height product comes from the second layer, which has watered
out. The last distinctive increase (point 4) represents final break-
through of the remaining high-permeability layers.

Spring 2000 39
 20 mD, 20 ft Oil
14,000 1.8 3000
Liquid rate 1.6
12,000 100 mD, 4 ft Water
1.4

Flowing pressure, psi

Total liquid rate, B/D

10,000
1.2 2000

Water/oil ratio
8000 1.0
6000 0.8
Oil Water Total flow rate
0.6 1000
4000
0.4
WOR
2000
0.2
0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time, days Flow rate, B/D

> Production rates during choke-back. Production data > Multilayer NODAL analysis. The modeled well (insert) used
during the choke-back period in a Middle Eastern well for the NODAL analysis has two layers, each with a different
show that choking back the production rate 50% results thickness and permeability. The multilayer analysis shows the
in a dramatic increase in the WOR. individual and total flow rates of the oil and water layers as they
are produced together at different pressures.

One well from the Middle East showed a pro- NODAL analysis—The design of a production A 35° inclined North Sea black-oil producer
duction rate of 7000 bbl [1112 m3] of water per system depends on the combined performance of is perforated and producing from five different
day and 400 bbl [64 m3] of oil per day after each the reservoir and the downhole tubing or reservoir layers. Each layer is known to be isolated from
shut-in (above). These rates reversed after a few “plumbing” system (above right).9 The amount of the others by impermeable shale barriers with no
days of production. Production data suggest that oil, gas and water flowing into a well from the crossflow between them. A nearby injector and
the apparent cause was a conductive fault con- reservoir depends on the pressure drop in the pip- an aquifer provide pressure support. The well
necting the oil reservoir to a shallower watered- ing system, and the pressure drop in the piping produced 29,000 B/D [4608 m3/d] with a water
out reservoir. In wells with the water source at a system depends on the amount of each fluid flow- cut of 90%. A recent production log in this well
higher pressure than the oil, choking back the ing through it. The deliverability of a well often shows significant shut-in crossflow from lower
well causes the WOR to increase. The choke-back can be severely diminished by inadequate perfor- layers into the upper—possibly a thief—layer.
test offers a useful diagnostic method to distin- mance or design of just one component in the sys- NODAL analysis was performed to match the PLT
guish between these two problems. tem. An analysis of a flowing wellbore and the Production Logging Tool analysis for both shut-in
When production history data are of low qual- associated piping, known as NODAL analysis, is and flowing conditions, thereby providing confi-
ity, a short-term production choke-back test can frequently used to evaluate the effect of each dence in any prediction of anticipated additional
be performed with several different choke sizes. component in a flowing production system from oil production obtained from various water shut-
The pressure should be monitored along with the bottom of a well to the separator. off treatments (next page, top).
WOR from a separator or, preferably, a three- NODAL analysis is also used to determine the Although NODAL analysis is a standard
phase flowmeter, to accurately determine location of excessive flow resistance, which methodology for modeling wellbore response,
changes in the WOR with drawdown pressure. results in severe pressure losses in tubing sys- there are two important considerations in its use
This can be performed only if the well has suffi- tems. The effect of changing any component in in this application. First was the need to calibrate
cient wellhead pressure to flow at several rates the system on production rates can be deter- the computed flow responses in the face of
and so should be done early in the life of the well. mined.10 For example, a commonly held belief is aggressive shut-in crossflow, and second, a rela-
that choking back a well that produces water will tively high number of separate layers were
reduce the water cut. This is certainly the case for involved. The analysis included six steps.
conventional coning. In other cases, it depends on 9. Elphick J: “NODAL Analysis Shows Increased Oil
the problem type as well as the reservoir pres- Production Following Water Shutoff,” presented at the
Petroleum Network Education Conference’s 2nd Annual
sures. For example, if a well is shut in for an International Conference on Reservoir Conformance
extended period of time, the WOR (measured Profile Modification, Water and Gas Shutoff, Houston,
Texas, USA, August 19-21, 1996.
when the well is put on line again) will depend on
10. Beggs HD: Production Optimization Using NODAL
the water problem and pressures involved. Analysis. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA: OGCI Publications,
Oil & Gas Consultants International, Inc., 1991.
11. A switch angle determines when primarily vertical
multiphase correlations should be replaced by primarily
horizontal ones. Is important to note that there are no
multiphase-flow pressure-drop correlations in the public
domain suitable for all inclination angles.

40 Oilfield Review
 data. Well histories were also consulted to
Calculated oil
L1
Calculated water
determine if any skin due to drilling or opera-
tional considerations could be expected. In this
Measured oil example, none was expected.
L2
Measured water • Flowing crossflow—The process was repeated
Layers for flowing conditions and several rates were
L3
analyzed. Shutting in all but one net-producing
layer at a time can speed up processing. The
L4 production index and non-Darcy skin factors of
each layer were then adjusted to match the
L5 data. The final calibrated model provided a
good match to all the data.
-5000 0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000 The calibrated NODAL analysis model was
Zonal flow rates, STB/D
then used to determine the estimated incremen-
> Matching NODAL analysis with production measurements. The blue tal production for two different shutoff options.
bars represent water flow while the green bars are oil flow measured by The first option would completely shut off all pro-
production logging tools. The circles represent the results of the NODAL
duction from the lowest layer, Layer 5 (below).
analysis. Layers 2 and 5 are fully watered out. Layer 1 is taking on water
and some oil, as indicated by the negative flow rates, because it has This option leaves Layers 1 to 4 open, and the net
lower in-situ reservoir pressure than the flowing wellbore pressure. result is an increase in oil production from 2966 to
4294 BOPD [471 to 682 m3/d]. Water production
• Model construction—Basic model construction • Shut-in crossflow—First, the shut-in crossflow would decrease from 26,510 to 12,742 BWPD
required a detailed deviation survey, pressure- exhibited by the PLT tool measurements was [4212 to 2025 m3/d]. The second option would
volume-temperature (PVT) properties, charac- modeled, enabling skin damage for each layer involve sealing off the nonhydrocarbon-producing
teristics of the reservoir in the near-wellbore to be evaluated. The process required a trial Layers 1, 2 and 5, and producing from Layers
region for each layer and perforation locations. and error approach, in which rough estimates 3 and 4. This option results in oil production
• Geology—Geological information about the (from earlier tests) of each layer’s production increasing to 4613 BOPD [733 m3/d], which is only
depositional environment around the well was index were sequentially adjusted to match the about 300 BPD [47 m3/d] more than option 1. The
necessary to estimate the degree and lateral
extent of impermeable barriers. The well Option 1 (shut off just Layer 5)
exhibited good lateral extent of such barriers.
Elsewhere in the field, variation in depositional Option 1 oil
L1
Option 1 water
environment caused uncertainty in the continu-
ity of permeability barriers, degrading confi-
dence in the sustainability of the localized L2
shutoff treatments.
Layers

• Layer pressures—Individual layer pressures

were obtained from shut-in data. Formation L3
skin damage factors were initially assumed to
be zero.
• Correlation selection—A multiphase flow cor- L4
relation comparison was conducted on the
-6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
basic system to determine the degree of varia-
Zonal flow rates, STB/D
tion exhibited by the models and the impact of
correlation parameters, such as switch angles.11
This step involves matching well-test data. Option 2 (shut off Layers 1, 2 and 5)

Option 2 oil
NODAL analysis to predict benefits of water Option 2 water
control. The two options proposed for this well L3
were to either simply shut off Layer 5 with a plug
and produce from the upper layers, or shut off
Layers 1, 2 and 5, leaving Layers 3 and 4 to
Layers

produce. The first option (top) would produce

an expected net increase in production of 1328
BOPD [211 m3/d], whereas the second choice
(bottom) predicts a net increase in production of L4
1647 BOPD [262 m3/d]. The second option is more
expensive and probably requires setting a plug
to isolate Layer 5 and cementing Layers 1 and 2.
The operator chose option 1.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Zonal flow rates, STB/D

Spring 2000 41
 difference between current performance and that Production logs—Accurate production logs, For example, an operator drilled a horizontal
predicted from shutting in one or more layers was such as those from the PS PLATFORM Production well in the Gulf of Mexico through a small gas
used as the basis for justifying the treatments. Services measurements can show water entry sand that was producing excessive water after a
The production log data showed that water into the wellbore.12 This tool can determine flow short time on production. In this well, the most
was being produced from all but one of the upper and holdup for each fluid phase in vertical, devi- likely source of the unacceptable water was
layers. Most of the unwanted water came from ated and horizontal wellbores.13 The addition of thought to be edge water from the lower aquifer.
the lowest layer. Because of reduced formation new optical and electrical sensors incorporating If the edge water was entering at the heel of the
pressures, the uppermost layer was stealing a local probe measurements and phase-velocity well, then a cost-effective solution would be to
small quantity of the oil and water being pro- measurements have resulted in major improve- run coiled tubing into the well and cement the
duced below. As expected, the liquid volumes ments in the diagnosis in both complex and sim- portion around the heel, leaving the coiled tubing
entering this thief zone decreased as production ple wells with three-phase flow. Such advances in place to allow production from the toe of the
increased. At the expected high production rates in reliable and accurate production logging, par- well. This would delay further water production
such losses were considered tolerable. The oper- ticularly in deviated wells with high water cuts, until the water advanced past the cement plug.
ator decided on option 1, setting a plug just represent a major step forward in identifying and However, if water was coming from the toe of the
below Layer 4, completely isolating Layer 5. understanding water-problem types. well, then it was possible to cement the lower
portion of the well using coiled tubing and a
packer in the screen. A final scenario, water
GHOST TPHL TPHL
entering from the middle of the well, would make
Devi > 90° Gas Gas Gas
Water profile Gas profile
it difficult to isolate the water entry and continue
Deviation production from the toe and heel. The operator
85 deg 95 Water Water Water
WFL WFL
Gamma ray Measured Holdup True vertical depth Holdup water velocity water flow rate Gas flow rate
needed to know the exact entry point of the
20 API 70 depth, ft 1 0 X070 ft X055 1 0 0 ft/min 500 0 B/D 1200 0 B/D 25,000 water production to take proper remedial action.
The logging program included the basic PS
PLATFORM tool string along with the GHOST Gas
X200 Holdup Optical Sensor Tool and the RSTPro
Reservoir Saturation Tool run on coiled tubing.
The GHOST, FloView holdups and spinner-derived
fluid velocity represent fluids inside the com-
X300 pletion screen, while the TPHL log and WFL
measurements respond to flow both inside and
outside the screen (left).
The WFL water velocity measurements are
X400
combined with the GHOST and TPHL holdup mea-
Water surements to calculate the water flow-rate pro-
entry
file. In this example, more than 50% of the water
X500 production is coming from the toe of the well,
flowing behind the screen and in the openhole
gravel-pack annulus. The GHOST measurement
also identified additional water entering midway
X600 along the horizontal wellbore at X450 ft [X137 m].
Water Since most of the gas is coming from the toe of
entry the well, the operator decided to continue pro-
> Downhole flow profile. Track 1 contains gamma ray (green) and wellbore deviation (solid black) from duction without further intervention.
openhole logs. The measured depth is shown in track 2. In track 3, gas (red) and water holdup (blue)
measured by the GHOST Gas Holdup Optical Sensor Tool clearly identify water entering the horizontal
section of the wellbore at X450 ft and X640 ft. Track 4 shows gas (red) and water (blue) contributions
across the entire wellbore and annulus, which is plotted against the wellbore trajectory profile. These
independent phase holdups are derived from the TPHL three-phase holdup log. Increasing water in the
profile can be seen as the wellbore turns more vertical above X350. Track 5 shows TPHL gas (red) and
water (blue) holdup logs. The WFL Water Flow Log water-velocity measurements (blue circles) are
shown in Track 6. Track 7 contains a water flow-rate profile computed from the TPHL holdup and WFL
velocity. Track 8 contains the gas flow-rate profile computed using GHOST holdup data.

42 Oilfield Review
 Depth, ft Special Diagnostics for while there are no simple solutions if the layers
Vertical Communication are not isolated by impermeable barriers.
X100 Water crossflow has two clearly defined forms. In Additionally, watered-out layers without cross-
addition to crossflow in the reservoir, which has flow will be subject to crossflow within the well-
already been discussed, crossflow also occurs bore during shut-in. Several diagnostic methods
inside the wellbore. Both kinds of crossflow are are useful in determining vertical communication.
interdependent and deserve careful consideration. Multirate tests—With little additional effort, a
A potential for wellbore crossflow exists production log can be turned into a multirate pro-
whenever the wellbore penetrates multiple lay- duction log, or ‘multilayer test,’ by measuring the
ers at different pressures. The pressure differ- production rate of each layer at several different
ence is maintained only when and where there is producing pressures with station measurements
X200 continuous isolation between each layer. This positioned between each layer. This helps deter-
implies that reservoir crossflow and wellbore mine the productivity index and average reservoir
crossflow are mutually exclusive for any pair of pressure for each layer.14 In this way, crossflow
Channel Channel layers. Some reservoirs, for example those with potential can be assessed using NODAL analysis.
stacked sand channels, have local shale barriers Wireline-conveyed formation testers—
Perforations extending hundreds of meters. However, such Wireline formation pressure measurements,
reservoirs may contain globally distant vertical such as those from the MDT tool or the RFT
connections that lead to crossflow and pressure Repeat Formation Tester tool can show if the lay-
communication even though they exhibit local ers are in pressure communication.15 If layers
X300
isolation with transient pressure variations have different pressures and are not in wellbore
between layers during a choke-back test. This communication, then they are isolated (below). If
gives a mixture of the watered-out layer prob- they show the same pressure, they may be in
lems with and without crossflow. communication or they may have simply been
Identifying the presence of crossflow in the produced (and injected) at similar rates, giving
formation is critical. Watered-out layers without the same pressure.
> A channel that produces water. The image of crossflow can be easily treated at the wellbore,
the cement in the annulus behind casing helped
to identify a water channel. The USI UltraSonic
Imager tool images—amplitude (track 1) and
X000
transit time (track 2)—confirm that a large open
channel exists in the cement annulus behind the Initial
casing just above the perforations. reservoir
pressures
X100

Formations
Through-casing imaging tools, such as the USI
X200
UltraSonic Imager tool can help evaluate the Current Upper Jurassic
reservoir
quality of the cement job in a well and identify pressures
flow channels behind casing. For example, in a X300
Depth, ft

well in New Mexico that was producing only Tarbut

water, the existence of a channel above the per-
forations was confirmed (above). The well began X400 Ness
producing oil after a cement squeeze and is cur-
rently flowing 50 BOPD [8 m3/d] and no water.
X500 Etive
12. Lenn C, Kuchuk F, Rounce J and Hook P: “Horizontal Well
Performance Evaluation and Fluid Entry Mechanisms,”
paper SPE 49089, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
X600
September 28-30, 1998.
13. Akhnoukh R, Leighton J, Bigno Y, Bouroumeau-Fuseau P, Rannoch
Quin E, Catala G, Silipigno L, Hemmingway J, Horkowitz
J, Hervé X, Whittaker C, Kusaka K, Markel D and
X700
Martin A: “Keeping Producing Wells Healthy,”
Oilfield Review 11, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 30-47. 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400
14. Hegeman P and Pelissier-Combescure J: “Production Pressure, psi
Logging for Reservoir Testing,” Oilfield Review 9, no. 2
(Spring 1997): 16-20. > Pressure measurements showing layer isolation. Pressure measure-
15. AL Shahri AM, AL Ubaidan AA, Kibsgaard P and Kuchuk F: ments, such as those from the MDT tool, can be used in in-fill wells to
“Monitoring Areal and Vertical Sweep and Reservoir establish the pressure in each layer after a period of production in the
Pressure in the Ghawar Field using Multiprobe Wireline field. When pressure differences exist between layers due to differen-
Formation Tester,” paper SPE 48956, presented at the tial depletion, they show that the layers are isolated from each other
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 27-30, 1998.
by vertical permeability barriers.

Spring 2000 43
 Vertical interference test—A vertical inter-
ference test performed with the MDT tool will
show effective vertical permeability near the
wellbore. Vertical permeability can be deter-
mined from the change in formation pressure
measured by a pressure probe, as formation fluid
is pumped from the formation by a second (sam-
pling) probe located about 2.3 ft [0.7 m] farther
along the wellbore face.16
Shale correlations—Log correlations can
demonstrate whether extensive shale barriers
exist across a field. Excellent shale correlations
from well to well suggest that reservoir layers
are isolated by impermeable rock and that cross-
flow is unlikely.
Spinner survey during shut-in—A production
log (spinner) may detect wellbore crossflow dur-
ing well shut-in, a clear sign of a pressure differ-
ence between isolated layers.
Choke-back test—Choke-back tests or produc-
tion data can provide a useful diagnosis of verti-
cal communication through the detection of
pressure differences.

Water-Control Solutions
Each problem type has solution options that
range from the simple and relatively inexpen-
sive mechanical and chemical solutions, to the
more complex and expensive reworked comple-
tion solutions. Multiple water-control problems
are common, and often a combination of solu-
tions may be required. Today, in addition to the
traditional solutions described above, there are
new, innovative and cost-effective solutions for
water-control problems. > The PatchFlex sleeve. A flexible composite
Mechanical solutions—In many near- cylinder made of carbon fiber, thermosetting
wellbore problems, such as casing leaks, flow resins and a rubber skin, the PatchFlex sleeve is
built around an inflatable setting element that is
behind casing, rising bottom water and watered- attached to a running tool and run into a well on
out layers without crossflow, mechanical or a wireline. When the sleeve is positioned opposite
inflatable plugs are often the solution of choice. > PosiSET mechanical plugback tool application. the area to be treated, a pump within the running
The PosiSet mechanical plugback tool can be The PosiSET through-tubing plug is used for tool inflates the sleeve using well fluid. The resins
near-wellbore water shutoff. The wireline- or are then heated until fully polymerized. The inflat-
deployed on coiled tubing or wireline, and is a able setting element is then deflated and extracted
coiled tubing-deployed plug uses a positive
field-proven technology that ensures reliable anchoring system with upper and lower slip- to leave a hard, pressure-resistant sleeve that fits
wellbore shutoff in cased- and openhole environ- anchors (top) that isolate water-producing snugly, even in damaged or corroded casing.
ments (right). layers in both open and cased holes (bottom).
When the wellbore must be kept open to
levels deeper than the point of water entry, a
through-tubing patch may be the answer. For withstand wellbore crossflow pressures. Once set, Shell UK Exploration and Production reduced
example, a new coiled tubing- or wireline- the sleeve becomes a composite liner inside the water cut in a North Sea well from 85% to 10%
deployed, inside-casing patch called the PatchFlex casing that is millable using through-tubing tech- by using a PatchFlex sleeve to isolate the water-
sleeve has been used successfully in many appli- niques if a subsequent squeeze operation is producing intervals. The PS PLATFORM logging
cations worldwide (far right). It is particularly well desired, or it can be reperforated later to allow tool quantified fluid contributions from each pro-
suited to through-tubing water or gas shutoff, reentry to the zones. The only disadvantage of the ducing zone. Two 4-ft [1.2-m] perforated intervals
injection-profile modifications and zonal isolation. composite liner is a reduction of less than 1 in. were identified as producing most of the
The inflatable sleeves are custom-built to match [2.5 cm] in the wellbore diameter. However, other unwanted water. The RST readings confirmed the
the length of the perforated intervals and can mechanical patch remedies take up even more of
the available casing inner diameter.

44 Oilfield Review
high water saturation in the water-producing
intervals. In addition, the RST saturation analysis D E
identified two more unperforated oil zones below Casing
the other producing zones. A traditional bridge Tubing
plug could shut off the water-producing zone, but Coiled tubing
would also block the new oil zones beneath. Gravel
pack Packer
Using PatchFlex technology, Shell shut off the
water-producing zones and produced the new oil E
zones below them. Protective fluid Oil zone B
Chemical solutions—Chemical treatments Packer
A
require accurate fluid placement. Coiled tubing
with inflatable packers can help place most treat- D
ment fluids in the target zone without risk to oil Treatment fluid Watered-out zone C
zones. Coiled tubing dual injection is a process of
pumping protective fluid down the coiled tubing
to the casing annulus and delivering the treat- > Coiled tubing dual injection. In water-control problems where
ment fluid through the coiled tubing (right). the treatment fluid placement is critical, a coiled tubing-conveyed
SqueezeCRETE cement is another key inflatable packer (A) can be used to provide wellbore isolation
between the oil (B) and watered-out (C) zones. In this gravel-pack
weapon in the armory of water-control solu- example, a treatment fluid (D) to stop unwanted water entry is
tions.17 Its low fluid loss and capability to pene- pumped through the coiled tubing into the lower watered-out zone
trate microfractures narrower than 160 microns and a protective fluid (E) is simultaneously pumped through the
make it ideal for remedial treatment of tubing annulus into the oil-producing zone.
leaks caused by flow behind pipe. Once set, this
cement shows high compressive strength, low
permeability and high resistance to chemical
attack. SqueezeCRETE treatment is often used Casing
with common cement for shutting off perfora- Tubing
tions when the problem is watered-out layers, or
Coiled tubing
rising bottom water or OWCs. Other applications
include sealing gravel packs, casing leaks or Packer
channels behind casing.
Rigid gels are highly effective for near- Oil zone C
wellbore shutoff of excess water (right). Unlike
cement, gels can be squeezed into the target for- Packer B Barrier
mation to give complete shutoff of that zone or to
reach shale barriers. They have an operational A Rigid gel Watered-out zone D
advantage over cement treatments because they
can be jetted rather than drilled out of the well-
bore. Typically based on cross-linked polymers, > Rigid-gel application using coiled tubing. Pumping a rigid gel (A)
products like MaraSEAL and OrganoSEAL-R into the watered-out zone can shut off water entry from a layer
systems can be easily mixed and have a long without crossflow. A coiled tubing inflatable packer (B) isolates
working life. They can be bullheaded into the for- the oil-producing zone (C) from the watered-out zone (D).
mation to treat specific water problems such as
flow behind casing and watered-out layers with-
out crossflow, or selectively placed in the water wells.19 Like rigid gels, products such as Marcit 16. Crombie A, Halford F, Hashem M, McNeal R, Thomas EC,
Melbourne G and Mullins OC: “Innovations in Wireline
zone using coiled tubing and a packer.18 and OrganoSEAL-F systems are cross-linked poly- Fluid Sampling,” Oilfield Review 10, no. 3 (Autumn 1998):
Another solution is a flowing gel that can be mers that are simple to mix, have a long (up to 26-41.
injected into small faults or fractures, but only three days) working time before becoming rigid, 17. Boisnault JM, Guillot D, Bourahla A, Tirlia T, Dahl T,
Holmes C, Raiturkar AM, Maroy P, Moffett C, Mejía GP,
penetrates formations with permeabilities greater and can be pumped through completion screens. Martínez IR, Revil P and Roemer R: “Concrete Develop-
than 5 darcies. Large volumes (1000 to 10,000 bbl) Smart or selective fluids in the form of poly- ments in Cementing Technology,” Oilfield Review 11,
no. 1 (Spring 1999): 16-29.
[159 to 1589 m3] of these inexpensive fluids often mers and surfactants are being developed for for- 18. These gels will not penetrate formations with perme-
successfully shut off extensive fracture systems mation matrix treatments near the wellbore. ability less than 25 mD.
surrounding waterflood injector or producing These treatments, called relative permeability 19. O’Brien W, Stratton JJ and Lane RH: “Mechanistic
Reservoir Modeling Improves Fissure Treatment Gel
modifiers, produce a permanent gel-like material Design in Horizontal Injectors, Idd El Shargi North Dome
Field, Qatar,” paper SPE 56743, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, USA, October 3-6, 1999.

Spring 2000 45
to stop flow in water layers, but retain fluid behav-
ior in oil layers to allow production to continue. In
some applications, they offer the potential of per-
forming a selective treatment simply by using a
low-cost bullheading method of placement.
Treatments for water problems in horizontal
wells are most effective when the treatment
zone is isolated from the remainder of the well-
bore. In cased holes, and to some extent in open-
holes, this is achieved mechanically with
inflatable packers. However, when a screen or
liner has been run but left uncemented, such
mechanical devices are not effective in isolating
the open annular space behind the pipe.
Developed for such situations, the Annular
Chemical Packer (ACP) achieves zonal isolation
using coiled tubing-deployed packers or bridge > Annular Chemical Packer. ACP technology involves placement of a cement-
plugs (right).20 The objective of the ACP is to based fluid into the annular space between an uncemented slotted liner and
the formation. The fluid is conveyed to the treatment zone using coiled tubing
achieve full circumferential coverage over a rela-
and injected between an inflatable packer assembly to fill the annulus over a
tively small length while leaving the liner free of selected interval. It is designed to set in this position forming a permanent,
material that might obstruct fluid flow or tool impermeable high-strength plug, fully isolating the volume of the annulus.
passage through the section. A low-viscosity,
cement-based fluid is pumped through coiled tub- Injector Problems Thermal fracturing, often encountered off-
ing and a straddle-packer assembly and placed Injectors can induce problems if the injection shore, is caused by the stress reduction in the
through the small slots in the pipe. Once placed, water is not properly filtered, because it may injection zone from cool-down. The zone with
the fluid immediately develops high gel strength contain particles large enough to cause matrix the highest injectivity cools down first and then
to prevent slumping and ensures complete annu- plugging. Or, if it is not treated properly with fractures—taking even more injection fluid and
lar filling and isolation. production chemicals such as bactericide and causing poor vertical sweep (below). In these
Completion solutions—Alternative comple- oxygen scavengers, damage can build up. Both of cases, it is difficult to avoid thermal fracturing.
tions, such as multilateral wells, sidetracks, these can increase injection pressure until a frac- The best strategy may be to ensure that all zones
coiled-tubing isolation and dual completions, can ture is initiated. Initially short, these fractures are fractured, either thermally or hydraulically, to
solve difficult water problems such as rising will grow in length and height to maintain injec- ensure a more even injection profile. Sometimes
OWCs, coning, incomplete areal sweep and tivity as the fracture faces become plugged.22 if a high-permeability layer is adjacent to a low-
gravity segregation.21 For example, coproducing When induced fractures extend vertically over permeability layer, the thermal fracture can break
water is a preferred strategy for coning in high- several layers, the operator no longer has control into the high-permeability zone, taking all the
value wells. It involves perforating the water leg over the vertical sweep. It is difficult to regain injection water and leaving the low-permeability
and using dual completions (below). control of the injection profile. zone unswept.

> Fighting water with dual drains. One solution to water-coning problems (left) is to perforate the water leg
of the formation and coproduce (middle) the water to eliminate the water cone. This low-cost approach
may increase the water cut, but improves the sweep efficiency and long-term reserve potential.
Alternatively, the water and oil can be produced separately through the tubing and annulus (right).
> Thermal fracturing in an injector well.
Fractures can be initiated in injector wells
through pressure and thermal stress
induced by cold-water entry. As a result,
the vertical sweep profile is compromised.

46 Oilfield Review
 Decision tree for a well with scale.
The decision tree presents different possible
scale treatment outcomes represented by
branches with the economic losses or profits
and the probabilities of reaching the end of
each branch. Circular nodes (yellow) represent
chance nodes where two or more possible
et
outcomes exist. The outcome of each branch
Plug s is independent of any other node, and the
OK probability of each branch is described by
a unimodal probability distribution (green)
computed from Monte Carlo simulations.
Square nodes (blue) represent decisions
Reset Plug n
ot in which the branch selected is a matter
plug set of choice, with no element of chance. The
branch endings represent revenues—called
value maximization. These help compare
different scenarios in an optimal allocation
of scarce resources.

Field-Wide Water Control

set
Plug Water-control problems, diagnostic techniques
ling
Descat OK
no l and solutions have been discussed in the context
ssfu
succe of their application to individual wells within a
field. However, if diagnostic techniques are modi-
fied and extended to large number of wells in a
field, then there is greater reduction in total field
water handling and, in many cases, signifi-
cant enhancement in total field hydro-
carbon production. By combining
the correct diagnosis with
the application of proven
solutions, water control can be an
effective reservoir management tool.
It is possible to apply individual well
Evaluating Risk water-control strategies to a number of wells
Justification of a treatment within a field; however, in large fields, this can
in any well is based on the value become time-consuming and inefficient. The first
of the increased hydrocarbon produc- objective in a field-wide water-control program is
tion expected. The key word here is Decision to screen wells with the following characteristics:
‘expected,’ which indicates a degree of uncer- trees are valuable • The well is accessible for intervention.
tainty in the analysis. Some water-control treat- tools to visualize and • The completion is robust enough to tolerate
ments can guarantee substantial production quantify all the options avail- intervention.
increase. In such circumstances, the primary ele- able to a decision-maker and the • There is economic value to reducing water pro-
ment of uncertainty is the job success itself. When probability of their outcomes. As an illus- duction from that well.
the incremental production is relatively small (or tration, PrecisionTree, provided by Palisade • The well has a water-control problem that can
was based on several assumptions) not only does Corporation, is a decision-analysis program used be treated economically with acceptable risk.
job-risk come into play, but also the prediction itself with the Excel spreadsheet program. The software Field-wide water-control strategies often are
becomes a key risk. Therefore, the value of a water- can be coupled to Monte Carlo methods, furnishing different from those applied on a well-by-well
control treatment to the operator needs to be quan- a ‘risked decision tree’ to analyze water-control basis. For example, completion designs that have
tified. An analysis incorporating the multifaceted options for specific wells (above). worked effectively on single wells may need to be
components of risk can be undertaken using the 20. Elphick J, Fletcher P and Crabtree M: “Techniques for
modified for field-wide improvements. In one case,
methods of quantitative risk analysis (QRA). Zonal Isolation in Horizontal Wells,” presented at the a South American operator was producing from a
Production Engineering Association Meeting, Reading,
England, November 4-5, 1998.
layered reservoir with distinct flow units separated
21. Hill et al, reference 5.
22. Injectivity is a measure of how much liquid can be pumped
in a well (or zone) with a given difference between the
injection fluid pressure and formation pressure.

Spring 2000 47
 1 year
by shales. The operator perforated all layers and water cuts ranging from 20% to 90%, and a field
ignored the variable pressures across the different average of 60%. The scoping study made the fol-
layers. Eventually, water appeared at several lay- lowing determinations:
ers in different wells, and the subsequent pressure • 15 wells are subsea, requiring a rig for inter-
depletion caused decreased oil production in the vention, and 6 have production tree or ‘fish-in-
remaining layers. Originally, the operator simply hole’ problems, making intervention difficult.
shut off water in the offending layers where the • Of the remaining 85 wells, 20 have corroded
local geology was favorable, but field production tubulars, increasing intervention risk.
continued to decline because of increased occur- • Of the remaining wells, 25 have significant
rence of water breakthrough and possible cross- potential for additional productivity if the
flow through discontinuities in the shale barriers. water cut is reduced.
Using a field-wide water-control strategy, the oper- • Of these 25 wells, 15 have solvable problems
ator moved away from commingled to single-layer consisting of casing leaks, flow behind pipe,
2 years
production in each well, so that the crossflow could bottom water, high-permeability layers without
not occur and full effective drawdown on the low crossflow, or fractures from injector to producer.
oil-pressure layers was achieved. This means The results identify primary candidate wells
fewer wells were draining each layer, but the field to take through to the second phase of the inter-
was being swept more efficiently. vention process—developing a solutions plan.
Field-wide considerations also include the In this phase, a spectrum of solutions includ-
collective influence of inflow performance of ing mechanical, fluid and completion options is
many wells. Local and regional geology—in developed. The solutions spectrum is ranked by
terms of structure and heterogeneity—influence risk, cost and benefit using Schlumberger quanti-
fluid movement. For example, the hydraulic rela- tative risk analysis (QRA). Solutions range from
tionships between producers and aquifers or ‘quick hit and rapid pay’ to longer duration,
injector wells should be considered (left). Current ‘higher cost with higher pay’ solutions.
5 years and future completion strategies also are impor- Schlumberger works jointly with the operator’s
tant factors in the analysis. Clearly, a lengthy asset team to identify the most cost-effective,
scoping, or screening, study is not required every lowest risk and highest value treatment option
time a field-wide water-control project is under- for each well. The chosen solution for each can-
taken. Nor should a scoping study simply be a didate well is fully engineered for final submis-
sifting mechanism for finding treatable wells. sion and peer review prior to execution.
The study must fit the problem, and the operator’s To maximize field-wide cost reductions, sur-
extensive knowledge can often help augment face-related water-control services (page 50)
and expedite the study. should be included in the overall screening pro-
Every water-control scoping study uses engi- cess. An integrated solution is often a combina-
neering diagnostic tools to identify which wells tion of borehole, reservoir-scale and surface
have high value and can be effectively treated at systems. Surface facilities may contribute up to
10 years low risk. The scoping study consists of two 25% reduction in overall water-handling costs.
phases, the diagnostic phase and the solutions
phase. The diagnostic phase uses the operator’s Field-Wide Problems
regional expert knowledge and experience cou- Eventually most oil fields are under a waterdrive
pled with Schlumberger engineering and soft- either from waterflood or a natural aquifer. Any
ware to profile the nature and cause of the attempt to significantly increase the recovery fac-
problem. Wells are initially screened to select a tor must increase at least one of the components
focus area within the field, then again to identify of the recovery factor: displacement efficiency,
wells that might benefit from some type of inter- areal-sweep efficiency or vertical-sweep effi-
vention, and finally to choose wells that are of ciency. The first, displacement efficiency, can be
sufficient value to justify treatment. improved only by reducing the residual oil satu-
WaterCASE software-based methodology ration with a surfactant, miscible flood or water-
screens candidate wells on the basis of existing alternating-gas scheme. Water control improves
> Streamline simulation. History-matched data such as production histories, existing pro- areal- or vertical-sweep efficiency.
FrontSim water-flow streamline simulations can
duction logs, reservoir characterization from both Any analysis of water sweep at a field scale
be used to show well interactions and detail the
exact fraction of water that flows between the numerical and analytical models and offset treat- requires an understanding of the geology and
injector and producer wells. In this example with ment data and experience (next page). One recent proper reservoir characterization. Reservoir char-
10 producers (red circles) and 5 injectors (blue study provided by Schlumberger in the North Sea acterization, particularly heterogeneity, is poorly
circles), the model helps visualize where injection
water is going at 1, 2, 5 and 10 years. Unswept
illustrates the results of the screening process. understood early in the life of the field, but grad-
regions (blue) are clearly visible near the center Here a field contained nearly 100 wells with ually improves as dynamic production data
of the reservoir. become available.

48 Oilfield Review
 > WaterCASE screen. Here a typical user interface asks spe-
cific questions (left) about symptoms and diagnostic test
results that help process analysis of the water-control prob-
lem. Once a sufficient set of answers is completed, problem
types are identified and ranked by score (right) according to
their likelihood of incidence. The WaterCASE logical structure
is shown superimposed above the screen display.

In calm depositional environments such as Fluvial and deltaic depositional environments may be considered subsets of fracture-induced
shallow marine, continuous shales are often pre- typically create sand channels. These may vary water problems. Shutting off this type of channel
sent, providing good vertical isolation between from well-stacked sands with good horizontal is extremely difficult.
layers, and making vertical sweep improvement and vertical continuity to isolated channels with Many operators are reluctant to proactively
practical. Any problem with watered-out layers poor communication. Since various problem control water prior to breakthrough, so most
without crossflow is easily corrected at the well- types can occur in this setting, good sand char- action is remedial. Proactive water control would
bore, and in this environment, this problem dom- acterization is important. include choking back zones with higher permeabil-
inates the more difficult problem of watered-out Carbonate reservoirs have their own chal- ity to create a more uniform sweep, but this would
layers with crossflow. lenges, including frequent natural fractures lead- mean sacrificing early cash flow for an uncertain
Eolian sands, often thick with good vertical ing to water entry from a water layer, or through return due to incomplete knowledge of hetero-
permeability, pose different problems for water fractures connecting injectors and producing geneity. However, the production (and injection)
control. They can exhibit gravity fluid segre- wells. Additionally, large dissolution channels profile can be improved through selective stimula-
gation, causing unwanted water entry into pro- from underground water flow, sometimes several tion of zones with lower permeability. This is a
ducing wells. meters across, can create superhighways to flow,
often with premature water breakthrough. These

Spring 2000 49
 simply flared, while the oil is processed in a
‘water-polishing’ stage in which water is removed
1.0 Fractional-flow prediction.

>
from the oil down to the 0.5 to 1.0% level, depend-
The two fractional-flow plots
Fractional flow, water-cut fraction

Water cut 95%

show how a multilayer reservoir ing on delivery requirements. Water is reinjected
0.75 might perform under different for both disposal and pressure maintenance. In a
A B assumptions. The two curves typical water-treatment facility for injection pur-
show a large difference in the
poses, all water streams from each stage of sepa-
0.5 final formation water-saturation
Final formation value at the same water-cut ration are further de-oiled to a level compatible
water saturation,
58% flow rate. Assuming that reser- with discharge to the environment or receiving for-
0.25 voir layers water out according mation, typically between 10 and 40 ppm. This
Final formation to their flow capacity, Curve A
water saturation, shows a substantial amount of
includes filtering through a 10- to 50-micron filter
38% to remove solids, making the water more compat-
0.0 oil still remaining in the forma-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 tion. Assuming layers water ible with the formation prior to reinjection.
Water saturation, % out from bottom to top, Curve B Chemical treatments including emulsion
shows nearly all the oil is
recovered. breakers, biocides, polyelectrolytes and oxygen
scavengers are added to the water to condition it
for reinjection, and corrosion inhibitors and anti-
particularly attractive option because of the capa- being swept. If the WOR is less than the frac- scale chemicals are added to protect tubulars
bility of using coiled tubing to precisely place tional-flow curve indicates, then there is and downhole equipment. When water is pro-
small hydraulic fractures. The improvement in hor- bypassed oil (above).23 If the oil production is duced at high rates, chemical additives consti-
izontal drilling techniques, including multilaterals accelerated, then it must account for its time- tute up to 20% of the surface water-handling
and coiled tubing, also is allowing a greater range delayed value when calculating net present costs. Surface equipment and facilities account
of viable solutions for complex reservoir problems. value—the value of the oil as it is produced for the remaining 80%.
However, the predominantly reactive mode for minus its value when it would have been pro- In practice, surface solutions start downhole.
water control, and hence sweep improvement, is duced. If the oil is incremental, then the water- Partial downhole oil-water separation in the well-
likely to continue until more precise early reservoir control operation can assume all the value to bore can eliminate some of the costs of lifting
characterization is achieved. help justify the costs of operation. Incremental water. An alternative to simultaneous downhole
Based on knowledge—or even a rough esti- oil is often more valuable than accelerated oil. separation and reinjection is downhole segre-
mate—of the reservoir volume and the frac- gated production whereby water and hydrocar-
tional-flow curve, the expected recovery can be Surface Facilities bons are produced separately—avoiding the need
estimated assuming production continues to a Surface facilities separate water from oil and pro- for surface separation capability. Finally, chemical
given water cut. By comparing the expected cess it to an acceptable specification suitable for treatments, such as emulsion breakers, antiscale
recovery with the ultimate recovery indicated by disposal to the environment or for reinjection and corrosion inhibitors injected downhole can
the WOR semilog plots, one can use field-wide (below). Gas is sent to a gas-processing plant or prepare fluids for efficient surface treatment.24
diagnostics to estimate how well the reservoir is

Typical surface water facilities and relative

>

costs. The surface water-management facilities

include primary oil, water and gas separators,
water-polishing systems to remove residual
oil from the water, solids-filter systems as well
as chemical treatments. These ensure that the
reinjected water is compatible with the receiving
formation and does not cause other problems
such as scale deposits and corrosion in the well-
bore system, and reservoir damage. Also shown
are typical relative water-cycle costs from the
producing well (lifting costs of 17%), chemicals
13%, removal and processing costs (including
separation 9%, de-oiling 14%, and filtering 15%),
pumping 27% and finally reinjection well costs
5%. Estimates of average water-handling costs
of 50 cents per barrel were based on the assump-
tion that the fields were onshore and the wells
were 6000 to 8000 feet [1828 to 2438 m] deep, and
producing 1000 BOPD [159 m3/d] and injecting
5000 BWPD [795 m3/d].

50 Oilfield Review
 Well pad factory concept—Existing separa- Flow path for removal of oil-contaminated water
tion technologies and multiphase pumping are
readily available for commercial use as a “well First-stage
separator Second-stage separator
pad factory.” Oil, water and gas are separated
close to the wellhead area and the unwanted
water and gas are reinjected for pressure main-
tenance or disposal with multiphase pumps.
Conventional surface facilities—Conven- Hydrocyclone
tional gravity-separation facilities can be Degasser Oil
designed for specific production profiles. With pump
Water meter
best practices and technologies, surface facili-
ties can provide substantial savings in the water- Interface level
control valve
removal chain (right). For example, centrifugal
Water pump
separation performed by Framo Engineering—
technology derived from multiphase pumping
practices—could soon provide important opera- > Surface water polishing. Hydrocyclone cross section
tional and capital savings by reducing the Oil is removed from produced
amount and size of equipment, and chemical- water prior to disposal into a Dirty water
river or sea, or injection back
injection costs. Centrifugal separation could be into the reservoir (top). The Dirty-water
extended to the well pad factory. Other specific hydrocyclone unit (bottom) is compartment
water-conditioning technologies used to reduce positioned downstream of the Clean-water
compartment
the concentration of water in oil to extremely low water outlets on the separator Oil compartment
and upstream of the degasser.
levels include water polishing, which can reduce Its function is to remove any
the water content down to the 40 ppm level; entrained oil from the water
ultrapolishing systems that reduce the water and return it to the separation Clean water
down to the 5 ppm level; and fine solids removal process before water is sent
to the degasser.
to filter debris such as sand down to 2-micron Hatch Individual
particle size. hydrocyclones
As worldwide daily water production Oil reject
increases, surface facilities, which were not orig-
inally designed to handle large volumes of water, • Install new production facilities with process- reduce the costs of traditional practices and mate-
are being retrofitted with equipment that can ing capacity of 360,000 B/D [57,204 m3/d] at rials (chemicals) and identify where future poten-
handle higher water fractions economically. 75% water cut, reaching a 90,000 BOPD tial cost increases can be controlled. Technical
Today, some reservoirs are being produced cost- [14,300 m3/d] oil-processing capacity. innovation will enable larger gross volumes to be
effectively with over 95% water cut. In well- • Retrofit the water-handling module in the handled with existing facilities. The total produc-
known reservoirs, such improvements in future to boost the mature-field water-handling tion system, from reservoir to custody transfer
water-handling services at surface facilities are capacity to cope with up to 90% water cut, point for oil and final resting place for water, must
unlocking additional recoverable reserves. allowing an economic final production phase be considered. In many operator and service com-
The LASMO Plc Apertura project in the Dación of up to 600,000 B/D [95,340 m3/d] and panies, research and development programs are
field in Venezuela is an example of a water-control 30,000 BOPD. currently targeted at developing appropriate tools
strategy used to improve the economics of field- In this particular field-wide redevelopment to manage this wave of produced water.
wide oil production by reducing the bottlenecks in project, water-control services and management Finally, an integrated approach to water con-
the water-handling capabilities of surface facili- have unlocked reserves by doubling the crude-oil trol in every well from reservoir to disposal (or
ties. Managed by the LASMO-Schlumberger recovery factor from 14% to nearly 35%. back to reservoir for pressure maintenance) will
alliance, the project, which began in April 1998, bring immediate and long-term cost-savings.
consists of three phases: A Look at the Future Integrated water management services is envi-
• Complete an intensive upgrading and debottle- The goals of reducing the costs of excess pro- sioned as the key to reservoir production opti-
necking of surface facilities to increase duced water and unlocking additional recover- mization by providing the means for producing
processing capacity 50%, from 20,000 B/D able reserves from mature fields appear difficult, additional recoverable reserves. While water-
[3178 m3/d] at 50% water cut to 80,000 B/D but some quick victories are within reach. control services will provide the bulk of progress,
[12,712 m3/d] at 60% water cut, increasing Understanding water-flow problems and their a downhole factory—built on the well pad fac-
oil production from 10,000 to 30,000 BOPD solutions is now a key component of today’s tory concept—will minimize produced water-
[1589 to 4767 m3/d]. reservoir engineering. handling costs, and optimized facilities
23. Dake LP: “The Practice of Reservoir Engineering,” in
Making the best of what we have is the first processes could turn waste into a commodity,
Developments of Petroleum Science 36. Oxford, England: step in water control, requiring a detailed under- which will further enhance the recovery factor.
Elsevier, 1994: 445-450.
standing of the assets, resources, activities and Nevertheless, the real money comes from the
24. Crabtree M, Eslinger D, Fletcher P, Miller M, Johnson A
and King G: “Fighting Scale—Removal and Prevention,” costs associated with handling produced water. potential increase in oil production. —RH
Oilfield Review 11, no. 3 (Autumn 1999): 30-45. Opportunities may then become apparent to

Spring 2000 51