See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320233877

Designing a Reservoir System for Waterflooding; (A Niger-Delta Case Study) *

Article · September 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 684

2 authors:

Godwin Chukwuma Jacob Nmegbu Pepple Daniel Dasigha

Rivers State University of Science and Technology Rivers State University of Science and Technology
64 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Simulator Development for Evaluation of Inflow Performance Relationship of Solution Gas Drive Reservoir View project

Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pepple Daniel Dasigha on 05 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 8, August-2017
ISSN 2278-7763

Designing a Reservoir System for Waterflooding; (A Niger-Delta

Case Study)*
NMEGBU, Chukwuma Godwin Jacob and PEPPLE, Daniel Dasigha
1
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Rivers State University, Port-Harcourt, Nigeria;
2
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Rivers State University, Port-Harcourt, Nigeria.
1
Email: gnmegbu@gmail.com
2
Email: danielpepple17@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
A dynamic reservoir simulation was performed on Eclipse to investigate the applicability of recommended waterflood design
principles to an offshore Niger Delta oil field case study. To ascertain contributions of the different schemes and techniques
applied in selecting the most appropriate waterflood design, a case of recovery by natural depletion was first considered. This
recovery approach, after all possible optimizations, yielded a recovery factor of 28.7%, implying the need for additional recovery
by secondary and enhanced oil recovery technologies. The numerical reservoir model was subsequently examined under
different cases to optimize a secondary recovery water scheme. Optimized parameters included critical gas saturation, well
placement, plateau production and injection rates, and well completion. Sensitivity analysis was also performed with respect to
these optimization constraints. With five injectors, including a converted watered-cut producer, overall recovery at the end of
the waterflood project simulation was 49.6%, a significant leap from that obtained by natural depletion.

Keywords : Enhanced Oil Recovery; Natural Depletion; Recover; Simulation; Water flooding;

1 INTRODUCTION

W hen a reservoir is depleted of it natural energy and

substantial accumulation still proves recoverable, a
choice of recovery scheme is made from a variety of
have been established in recent time in an effort to recover the
enormous oil reserves left behind by inefficient primary
recovery mechanisms. Many of these processes have the
enhanced oil recovery methods. These choices are however potential to recover more oil than waterflooding in specific
dependent on a wide range of factors which take into reservoirs. However, no process has been discovered which
consideration the geology of the reservoir, residual oil enjoys the widespread applicability of waterflooding [3].
saturation, reservoir chemistry, petro-physical properties of the Designing for waterflooding which is the intent of this
reservoir, lithology, expected ultimate recovery and so on. study is multi phased. First, simple engineering evaluation
Secondary and enhanced oil recovery methods are selected to techniques are conducted to determine whether the reservoir
tackle distinct recovery cases; for example, thermal methods meets the minimum technical and economic criteria for a
can be target recovery techniques for reservoirs with low API successful flood. If so, then more-detailed technical
gravity crude oil, chemical processes may be considered for calculations are required, this will include the full range of
reservoirs with high interfacial tension between the rock-fluid engineering and geo-scientific studies. The geologists must
/ oil-water system, enriched gas injection can be ideal for develop as complete an understanding as possible of the
residual oil mobility enhancement via viscosity reduction, and internal character of the pay intervals and of the continuity of
so on. The lower the complexity of the reservoir system with non-pay intervals [4]. Sometimes, this pre-understanding often
respect to enhanced oil recovery upon evaluation, the less is limited because the injector/producer wells’ connectivity has
ambiguous the process in selecting suitable EOR techniques. not been determined quantitatively. Interference testing can
Conventionally, waterflooding is referred to as a secondary provide insight into connectivity when its cost is justifiable [5].
recovery method, usually precedes other enhanced methods. It Designs are also evaluated to determine well spacing and
have been practiced for years and its full conception evolved pattern style to be used in a particular flood. These choices are
primarily in the late1940's and1950's from extensive research based on the thorough comprehension of the reservoir
and development efforts by institutions combined with field geology, the proposed design of surface facilities (particularly
experiences in the 1960's and 1970's [1]. The primary reasons water-injection volumes), and any potential limits on the
why waterflooding is the most successful and most widely numbers of injectors and producers [6], [7]. Such factors are
used oil recovery process is that it offers a relatively low cost interrelated in terms of capital and operating costs and oil,
when compared to other injection fluids, water is generally water and gas producion rates to define the overall economics
readily available, its ease of injection and high displacement of the project. In making these preliminary calculations, facility
efficiency with which it displaces oil. [1], [ 2]. capacities need to be flexible because as the waterflood
Before the implementation of the flooding project, a progresses, there certainly will be modifications to the original
preliminary well design is made by a league of engineers. designs and operating conditions [4], [8], [9].
Many complex and sophisticated enhanced recovery processes In the establishment of the suitability of candidate
Copyright © 2017 SciResPub.
International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 8, August-2017
ISSN 2278-7763

reservoirs for waterflooding, the reservoir geometry, fluid 2.1.1 Construct a Geologic Model of the Reservoir or
properties, reservoir depth, lithology and rock properties, fluid Project Area.
saturations, reservoir uniformity and pay continuity, primary  Identify and include all faults and other structural
reservoir driving mechanisms and other critical parameters features that may affect fluid flow in a geologic frame
must be thoroughly analyzed. [10]. work model of the reservoir.
A critical consideration during the designing phase of a  Identify and include all reservoir heterogeneities, such
waterflooding project is the flood pattern selection. The flood as permeability barriers, reservoir unconformities, etc.
pattern analysis is aimed at selecting proper injection patterns in the geologic model.
that will deliver the injected water at desired maximum  Perform characterization of the geologic model to
possible contacts with the residual oil. During the design stage, include areal and vertical variation of reservoir
injectors can be made by conversion of existing producing properties such as facies, net pay, porosity,
wells into injectors or drilling infill injection wells. [8], [11]. permeability, and saturations.
Surface or subsurface topology and/or the use of slant-hole
drilling techniques may result in production or injection wells 2.1.2 Analyze Rock/Fluid Properties Data.
that are not uniformly positioned. In these cases, the region  Determine mineralogy of reservoir rocks.
affected by an injection well could be different for every other  Conduct studies on compatibility of injection water
injection well. Some small reservoirs are developed for with reservoir rocks.
primary production with a limited number of wells and when
it economics proves marginal, perhaps only few production  Determine PVT properties of reservoir fluids,
wells are converted into injectors in a non-uniform including saturation pressures and oil viscosity.
arrangement. Faulting and localized variations in porosity or
2.1.3 Construct Reservoir Flow Model with Data
permeability may also lead to irregular patterns for water
Obtained Geologic and Reservoir Data
flooding [3].
This study is aimed at designing and optimizing If the reservoir had prior production history, history-match
waterflooding schemes within a case study, it tends to justify reservoir model to obtain the current depleted state of the
the objective of performing a preliminary natural depletion reservoir before the start of waterflooding.
simulation, designing a waterflood based on voidage At the completion of the above statement, determine gas cap
replacement principle, optimizing well locations and size if a gas cap is present and extent of aquifer influx if
perforations to maximize recovery, optimize sensitive reservoir reservoir has an active aquifer.
parameters like critical gas saturation and optimize production Compare pressure distribution in model after history match to
/ injection rates to meet management constraints while actual pressure data. Identify state of reservoir depletion.
maximizing recovery. Owing to design data limitations, this Explore distribution of fluid saturation in the model after
study primarily investigates the impact of well orientation, history match to identify potential undepleted areas of the
radius and location on the overall recovery from the reservoir that would be targets for waterflooding.
waterflood. Intricate design details for the drilling of the well 2.1.4 Run prediction cases
are not considered. Furthermore, the variation of each of these
Run a base prediction case assuming continuation of current
parameters on injection / production wells will be sensitized
depletion strategy. Run several predictive cases assuming the
on both performance and field recovery efficiency.
reservoir is waterflooded with different numbers and locations
The significance of study of this study is based on the fact
of water injectors and producers.
that recovery from every oil and gas within the study area field
Compare results obtained from above. If the waterflood cases
is often inevitably phased into the primary, secondary and
indicate substantial improvement in total oil recovery, then
possibly tertiary phases. The Nigerian oil industry, in its over
proceed to design optimization.
60 years of existence, have remained reliant on majorly
primary and minor secondary recovery. This research is 2.1.5 Optimize Waterflood Design.
structured to be a reminder of how much resources are left  Choose the cases from the preceding step with the
behind when adequate secondary recovery methods are not “best” reservoir performance and optimize the
implemented. numbers and locations of injectors and producers.
 Optimize injection and production rates for each case.
2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY  Rank the cases by incorporating project economics.
The research tends to build an Eclipse model for a Niger delta oil 2.1.6 Perform Sensitivity Analysis
field and its adaptation is used well design and Simulation using  Select two or three cases from waterflood design
the ECLIPSE software. optimization and perform sensitivity analyses on key
2.1 Recommended Steps in Waterflood Design reservoir and operational variables of the waterflood
design.
The recommended design steps presented in [9] provides a
 Repeat economic analyses of the entire project based
basis for this study and is hence adopted, these steps are as
on results from the step above.
follows;

Copyright © 2017 SciResPub.

International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 8, August-2017
ISSN 2278-7763

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1.2 Sensitivity Analysis

Increasing plateau rate from 1800 – 3200
The numerical reservoir model is examined under different
cases to implement two different production schemes with the
aim of production optimization.
 Scenario 1: Natural depletion scheme
 Scenario 2: Water Injection scheme

3.1 Scenario 1: Natural Depletion Scheme

The reservoir model is simulated for hydrocarbon production
by the natural energy inside the reservoir with the aid of
different drive mechanisms such as the solution gas drive, rock
and connate water expansion, water drive, and consequently
as the pressure drop below bubble point, secondary gas drive.

Fig. 2. FOE showing plateau optimization from 1800 to 3200 and the
recovery factors

For the natural depletion case of production until 100 bars, the
production plateau was analyzed from the material balance at
3200 Sm3 /day. The implication of increasing the plateau was
that there was a record of a higher production rate and faster
recovery. This consequently increased the recovery factor from
14.8% to 26% as shown in figure 2 above. With this, there could
be an early water breakthrough during production at a faster
Fig. 1. Drive Energies from Eclipse rate

The model is run from an initial reservoir pressure of 446 3.1.3 Five-Well Optimization
bars to about 258 bars (Bubble point pressure). Drawdown was New vertical wells J1 and J2 are drilled at strategic locations
given to be 30bar. Initially, there were four appraisal wells (A2, to help drain the reservoir effectively. These wells were
A4, N2, and N3). deviated from a platform. Adding new wells increased the RF
at a significant rate from about 26% to 28%. In order to further
3.1.1 Four-Well Optimization improve recovery, the plateau was optimized from base case of
Initial simulation run was from initial reservoir pressure to 4540 Sm³/d to 6000 Sm³/d but there was no significant
bubble point pressure, i.e. from 446 bars – 258 bars. The four difference. Figure 3 below shows the FOE of initial appraisal
explorations and delineation wells assigned A2, A4, N2 and N3 wells and adding new wells.
are opened to production for the initial simulation run under
the following constraints.

TABLE 1
PRELIMINARY SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Parameter Value
Bottom hole pressure constraint 258 bar
Drawdown pressure 30 bar
Plateau rate 1800 Sm3/day
Maximum Water cut 90%
Max GOR 1500 Sm3

Fig. 3. FOE After the Addition of 2 New Wells

From the analysis above, the RF increased significantly from

25.7% to 28%. This implies that if more wells are added, there
Copyright © 2017 SciResPub.
International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 8, August-2017
ISSN 2278-7763

is a great chance of improving recovery. recovery technique that maintains the pressure in the reservoir
The major aim of this study is to optimize production and and forcing the oil into the borehole.
since RF obtained so far is not high enough, another well J3
was added. This well was drilled as a horizontal well deviated 3.2.1 Why Water Injection?
from platform and only penetrates layer 4.  The reservoir has an aquifer that is of considerable
size that is enough to drive the oil to the wellbore
 Water injection has been known to give a high
TABLE 2
W ELL PLACEMENTS AND PERFORATIONS FOR PRODUCERS recovery factor of about 50% when implemented
 The aquifer acts as a form of bottom water drive
Wells I J K1 K2  There are certain constraints for the implementation of
J1 8 31 2 5 this process and they are listed below:
J2 5 33 2 5  Seawater may be used as injection fluid without any
J3 18 16 4 4 issue of compatibility
J3 17 16 4 4  The minimum BHP is 260bars with a pressure draw
J3 16 17 4 4 down of 30 bars
J3 15 18 4 4  The maximum water injection rate is 3000Sm³/d and
maximum water available is 15000Sm³/d.
 The fracture pressure of the reservoir is 480bars
After adding well J3, the RF improved from 28% to 28.7%.  Injection is controlled using Voidage replacement
Plateau optimization was conducted and in order to meet the option.
constraint of 4years, it was achieved at a plateau of 6400.
However, there was little increase in RF after this. Figure 4 3.2.2 Well Placement
below shows the FOE and FOPR of the optimized case of new In order to implement the water injection scenario, there was
wells against optimized case of old wells. need to drill injection wells and even convert some non-
functional producers. The knowledge of the number of wells to
drill was gotten from the analytical analysis of the material
balance. Also, the transmissivity of the well matters a great
deal. To be certain that the location been picked for the
addition of a new well is the best, the transmissivity was
checked and the layers with the highest transmissivities were
perforated. In other words, 3 injector wells were drilled
initially with a producer well A2 converted to an injector well
but the RF wasn’t justified with what was gotten in the
material balance analysis. In order to fully optimize the well
locations, an extra well was drilled inclusive of changing the
locations of the former in peripheral positions. The fully
optimized well location is shown below;

TABLE 3
W ELL PLACEMENT FOR INJECTORS
Fig. 4. FOE and FOPR of Old and New Wells Cases Wells I J K1 K2
W1 20 9 2 6
Economically speaking, it was observed that adding new W2 11 15 5 6
wells won’t be profitable for the operator as the RF would have W3 9 37 2 8
little or no significant increase that can justify drilling new W4 3 38 6 8
wells. Therefore, these producer wells have been fully A2INJ 8 28 5 8
optimized by natural depletion and the RF generated was
28.7%. With this recovery factor, it is still not profitable to
invest which calls for the need to implement secondary
recovery technique. This is why the next stage of this study 3.2.3 Start of Water Injection
would be on implementing water injection based on the The plateau rate for water injection was set to 7510 Sm³/d
optimized case of the natural depletion. for 1005 voidage replacement. In order to determine the time
that the water injection will commence, the reservoir was
3.2 Scenario 2: Water Injection Simulation allowed to produce naturally with a plateau constraint of 7510
After the reservoir has depleted its own energy (natural Sm³/d and the time at which the pressure reduced to 290bars
depletion) and the RF proves non-economical, the need for was noted before introducing water injection. Figure 15 shows
water injection is necessary. Water injection is a secondary the Field Oil Efficiency (FOE) and Field Pressure Rate (FPR)
Copyright © 2017 SciResPub.
International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 8, August-2017
ISSN 2278-7763

when plateau is set to 7510Sm³/d and the time at which the 3.2.5 Voidage Replacement
reservoir pressure drops to 290 bars. Voidage replacement analysis is key, showing how the pore
spaces are been filled as the oil initially in place are forced out.
This implies that the volume of oil going out must be equal to
the injected fluid coming in, in this case water. The figure
below shows the voidage replacement during the reservoir
depletion with water injection.

Fig. 5. FOE, FOPR and FPR with a Plateau of 7510S m³/d

From the analysis above, the time when pressure drops to 290
bars is about 18months which implies that water injection
started at this time. Also, increasing the plateau rate from
optimized plateau of 6400 from the natural depletion scenario
reduced the RF from 29% to about 27.5%. This is because the Fig. 7. Variation of FVIR and FVPR with Time
reservoir is made to produce a higher rate leading to early
water breakthrough thereby reducing RF. One of the constraints of this process is a maximum water
injection rate of 15000 Sm³/d. From analysis, as production
3.2.4 Well Optimization rate increases, the voidage replacement also increases. The
With the set plateau rate of 7510 Sm³/d, and well implication of this is that the void spaces are efficiently filled as
placements fully optimized, there was a significant increase in oil is produced.
the RF as compared with that of natural depletion. The result is
shown in the figure below 3.2.6 Comparative Analysis
From a relative standpoint and as the well is been optimized in
terms of plateau and well placement, there was a incredible
change in the reservoir and well properties such as production
rate, well water cut, GOR, reservoir pressure and so on.

3.2.6.1 Comparison of FOPT for Natural Depletion and

Water Injection
Comparing the FOPT for a natural depletion case and water
injection case, there was a significant increase from 10.2
MMbbls to about 18.0 MMbbls.

Fig. 6. FOE of Natural Depletion and Water Ingection

From the result shown above, optimizing the well location

fully for the water injection process increased the RF from 29%
during natural depletion to 49.6%. Comparing these results
with that obtained from the material balance analysis, there
was little or no significant difference which proves that water
injection proves best for this evaluation. Fig. 7. FOPT of Natural Depletion and Water Injection

Copyright © 2017 SciResPub.

International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 8, August-2017
ISSN 2278-7763

3.2.6.2 Comparison of FPR of Natural Depletion and gas develops and besides, the BHP was reduced below bubble
Water Injection point pressure. Therefore, this lead to the increase in the GOR.
But the GOR at water injection remains constant and immobile
because the constraining pressure was above bubble point
pressure and there was a higher recovery of oil. Due to the
constraint of maximum injection rate set at 3000Sm³/d, all the
injection wells are injecting at that rate except well W4.

Fig. 9. Plot of FPR against TIME

From the above figure, at 4years, the FPR became constant at a

low rate but at the start of the water injection process after
18months, there was pressure maintenance. This pressure
maintenance allowed a further oil recovery up until 10 years
Fig. 11. Plot of FGOR of Natural Depletion and Water Injection
before becoming constant.

3.2.6.3 Comparison of FWCT of Natural Depletion and The RF for both natural depletion and water injection scenario
Water Injection is shown in the table below. Due to the constraint of maximum
After natural depletion, the water cut was about 38% before injection rate set at 3000 Sm³/d, all the injection wells are
becoming constant. The water cut was low because there was operating at that rate except well W4. The RF for both natural
still so much oil left untapped and the reservoir was not being depletion and water injection scenario is shown in the table
drained efficiently. After water injection, the water cut was as below;
high as 82% although less than the constraining water cut of
90% and this implies that more oil could have been recovered
TABLE 4
from this reservoir. COMPARISON OF SIMULATION RESULTS FOR NATURAL DEPLETION
AND WATER INJECTION SCENARIOS

Natural Water
RF Depletion Injection
Material Balance Analysis 21% 51.2%
Simulator Run (Eclipse) 28.7 48.6%

From the result above, the RF gotten from using water

injection is almost twice that obtained from allowing the
reservoir deplete with its own energy. From analytical results,
RF from water injection was calculated to be 51.2% which is
close considering material balance does not consider the
heterogeneities in the reservoir.
Fig. 10. Plot of FWCT of ND and WI against Time 3.2.7 Final Well placements
Figure 12 below shows the final well placement for the new
wells drilled, both producers and injectors.
3.2.6.4 Comparison of FGOR of Natural Depletion and
Water Injection
The gas oil ratio as at natural depletion was as high as 45%.
This is because there was a high pressure depletion and so free

Copyright © 2017 SciResPub.

International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 8, August-2017
ISSN 2278-7763

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are thankful to Ake Victor and Lotanna
Ohazuruike for their contributions.

REFERENCES
[1] S.C. Rose, J.F. Buckwalter., & R.J Woodhall,.. “The Design
Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding”, Vol. 11.
Richardson, Texas: Monograph Series, SPE 1989
[2] A. Muggeridge, A.Cockin, K. Webb, H. Frampton, I. Collins, T.
Moulds, & P. Salino, (2014). “Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery
and technological limits”. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 372(2006), 20120320.
[3] G.P. Willhite, “Waterflooding”, Vol. 3. Richardson, Texas: Textbook
Series, SPE. 1986
[4] S. Aristov, P. van den Hoek, and E. Pun, “Integrated Approach to
Managing Formation Damage in Waterflooding”. Presented at the
Fig. 12. 3D image showing final well placement SPE European Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition,
Budapest, Hungary, 3–5 June, 2015. SPE-174174-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/174174-MS.
4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS [5] F.F. Craig, “The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding”,
4.1 Conclusion vol. 3. Richardson, Texas: monograph series, SPE. (1971).
This research has presented a case study of the application of [6] A.G. Abbas, A. Mohammed, L.A. H. Awad, & M.A.M. Ibraheem,
sound waterflood design principles to an oil field in the Niger (2015). “Feasibility Study of Improved Oil Recovery through Water
delta. The approach was that recommended by Ezekwe in flooding In Sudanese Oil Field (Case Study)” (Doctoral dissertation,
2010. The method basically involved building and Sudan University of Science and Technology).
characterizing a geologic model, running a natural depletion [7] B. Palsson, D. R. Davies, A. C.Todd, & J. M. Somerville ”The water
case prior to designing and optimizing a waterflood scheme. injection process: a technical and economic integrated approach”.
Injection rate was basically constrained at limits set by water Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 81(3), 333-341. 2003).
supply at surface conditions. [8] T. Ahmed, “Reservoir engineering handbook”. Gulf Professional
Well locations were guided by sweet-spot analysis to identify Publishing, 2006.
strategic areas that would aid maximum recovery. The wells [9] N. Ezekwe “Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Practice”, Boston;
were scheduled to come on stream considering practical Prentice Hall, 2010, pp.567-568.
drilling and completion durations in line with the field [10] C. E. Thomas, C. F. Mahoney & G. W Winter, 1987. “Water-Injection
development phasing. Following this, preliminary simulation Pressure Maintenance and Waterflood Processes” (1987 Petroleum
runs were carried out as a means to identify which wells might Engineering Handbook, Chapter 44). Petroleum Engineering Handbook.
get watered out earlier than desired. One of such wells was [11] M. Sayyafzadeh, P. Pourafshari, & F. Rashidi, “Increasing ultimate oil
subsequently converted into an injector. Perforation locations recovery by infill drilling and converting weak production wells to
were optimized for some of the producing wells. This involved injection wells using streamline simulation”. In International Oil and
setting eclipse to shut-off watered out perforations and reopen Gas Conference and Exhibition in China. (January, 2010). Society of
new perforations that were distant from the moving oil water Petroleum Engineers.
contact (OWC). [12] A. Satter, G. M. Iqbal, & J. L. Buchwalter, “Practical enhanced
Following the well optimization, the plateau rate was also reservoir engineering: assisted with simulation software”. Pennwell
optimized considering a desired duration for the field to Books. 2008.
maintain the plateau rate. Subsequently analysis revealed a [13] H. Dykstra & R. Parsons, ”The prediction of oil Recovery by Water
rate of 6400 m3/day as being the optimum. Having this rate Flood” in secondary Recovery of Oil in the United States, 2nd ed.
also implied tweaking the injection rate to maintain the Washington, DC; American Petroleum Institute, 1950, pp. 160-174.
voidage replacement adopted for this work. [14] T. Hofsaess & W. Kleinitz “30 Years of Predicting Injectivity after
Finally, simulations were rum following each minor decision Barkman & Davidson: Where Are We Today?” Presented at the SPE
to ascertain if such decision was beneficial to overall recovery European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 13–14 May,
or detrimental. Final results indicated a recovery factor of 2003.. SPE-82231
49.6% following the successful waterflood design and [15] K. Lee, C. Huh, & M. M. Sharma “Impact of Fracture Growth on Well
optimization Injectivity and Reservoir Sweep during Waterflood and Chemical
EOR Processes.” Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
4.2 Recommendations and Exhibition, Denver, 30 October–2 November, 2011. SPE-146778.
Simulations are only mathematical resolutions to real life [16] S. Sathyamoorthy, P. Priyandoko, K. B. Flatval, A. Bulang, P. J. van
problems. As such, the last step of every such simulation is a den & Y. Qiu, “Radical Approach to Water Injection Scheme for
field pilot test. In the lowest case, a laboratory scale test could Barton. Presented at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery”,
be acceptable. Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, 20–21 October, 2003.. SPE-
84885.
Copyright © 2017 SciResPub.
International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 8, August-2017
ISSN 2278-7763

[17] M. Zwaan, R. Hartmans, S. Schoofs, A. H. De Zwart, G. Rocco, R.

Adawi, & T. Sorop, “EOR Field Management Through Well-Planned
Surveillance”. In SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia,
January, 2012. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Copyright © 2017 SciResPub.

View publication stats