SPE 106657

Simulation Study of Drilling Horizontal Wells in One of Iranian Oil Fields

Abbas Azarkish, Natl. Iranian Oil Co., and Elham Khaghani Kavkani, Petroleum U. of Technology, Iran

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Production and Operations This study confirms simultaneous use of
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 31 March–3 April 2007.
overbalance method and horizontal well in this
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as reservoir in order to: A) Increase production rate up
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any to 3 to 4.5 times by boosting productivity index
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of (PI). B) Communicate a large area leading to a
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is better drainage area. C) Postpone the water
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous breakthrough by minimizing the draw down
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. pressure.
Introduction
Abstract To identify the key factors controlling the impact of
The objective of this study is to investigate the drilling new horizontal well at the reservoir scale
advantages of drilling horizontal wells on oil are always a fundamental issue. Once this
recovery improvement. To evaluate the effect of identification is done, simulation model will allow
horizontal length, porosity, anisotropy, staggered- determination of which combination of vertical and
line well pattern with gas injection (in the top layer) horizontal wells will be the most suitable drilling
and water injection (in the bottom layer), different activity in order to enhance the production. The
scenarios were studied. impact of a horizontal well on the reservoir will
depend on many factors. This includes the number
This study is focused on simulation of formation-A
of existing wells, well spacing, formation thickness,
of a carbonate reservoir which consists of three
Kv/Kh, type of drive mechanism, completion
layers; where horizontal well is going to be drilled
intervals of vertical wells, well radius, drainage
in layer-2 of this formation. The average thickness
radius, oil viscosity (and other PVT properties) and
of formation-A is about 167.64 meters (550 feet)
obviously the length and placement of horizontal
and we also have tilted water oil contact in this
wells. The aim of this study is to assess effect of
formation.
horizontal well performance on boosting oil
This field has produced around 146.9 MMBBL until recovery. A case study from one of Iranian
year 2002 for the last 12 years with the Recoverable reservoirs is simulated.
Reserve of about 237.31 MMBBL. Up to now 40
wells have been drilled in this field. Background
Oil recovery process is divided into two stages:
IRAP/RMS software was used to generate
primary and enhanced oil recovery. Primary
geological model. Based on selected reservoir
recovery results from the use of natural energy
black-oil model, IMEX from CMG is used for
present in a reservoir as the main source of energy
simulation task. Sector model used for simulation as
for the displacement of oil into producing wells. In
we only had one productive horizontal well in the
recent years augmentation of natural energy through
formation (scale-down method).
injection of water or gas to displace oil toward
2 SPE 106657

producing wells is also accounted as primary effect for sandstone reservoirs with strong edge and
recovery. EOR results from injection of gas or bottom water drive, especially during the middle
liquid chemical and/or the use of thermal energy. and high water-cut period.
EOR process can be classified into four categories: Sarkar5 et al described engineering assessments for
mobility-control, miscible, thermal, and other EOR (steam injection) at the Charivari Creek
process such as microbial EOR. In most EOR (Arkansa) water flooded heavy oil reservoir. The
projects, application of horizontal drilling will effects of different pattern configurations involving
enhance the volumetric displacement efficiency and vertical and horizontal wells and the length of
in some Cases improve the recovery mechanisms. laterals in horizontal wells on steam flood
Literature Review performances of thin, low-permeability reservoirs
were analyzed in details through reservoir
Palasthy1 et al compensated the decreasing domestic
simulation. Configurations using horizontal
recoverable reserve with the application of different
injectors and vertical producers show how much
EOR methods considering horizontal wells. He
poorer reservoir performances are rather than those
answered how the production potential of the
reservoir could be doubled in the last seven years using vertical injectors and horizontal producers. He
showed that fluid flow difficulties created with the
and how the forecasted ultimate oil recovery
high injectivity of horizontal injectors and the
increased to over 40 percent. He noticed that
higher pressure gradient needed to establish flow
producing well pattern and acceleration of
into the vertical producers could be the main
exploitation were the keys in mature reservoirs.
reasons.
Greves and Xia2 compared THAI (Toe-to-Heel Air
Bagci, Aybak and Shamsul6 have exhibited two
Injection) with other IOR process in 2000. THAI
laboratory 3D scaled models to compare the
creates unique operating conditions in the reservoir
that have special advantages for heavy oil recovery. performance of steam flooding in reservoirs having
They developed and revised this study in series of bottom water zone with the application of different
well configurations. The well configurations were
three dimensional view (3D) tests by using different
changed during the course of experiments to
well configuration in 2002. The well patterns which
determine their effects on oil recovery. Bottom
they used were Vertical (VI) or horizontal injection
(HI) and horizontal producer (HP) wells in direct water thickness was changed to see the effects on
oil recovery. The highest amount of oil was
line drive (VIHP, HIHP), staggered line drive
recovered by vertical injection and horizontal
(VI2HP) and line drive (2VIHP). Experimentally,
the horizontal injector configuration (HIHP) was production well configuration (in the triangular
model) in the absence of a bottom water zone in
found to be the most efficient for achieving rapid
both models. Besides, these configurations
start-up, i.e. the shortest time to achieve stable
recovered more oil even in the presence of an
combustion front propagation.
underlying bottom water zone. However, recovery
McGurie and Holt3 presented summary of decreased with increasing thickness of bottom water
conceptual development, reservoir simulation and zone which was observed in the triangular model.
field testing of a new miscible EOR recovery
Chang7 et al Predicted horizontal/slanted well
technique at Prudhoe Bay in 2001. It’s practically
production by mathematical modeling. A horizontal
profitable to utilize vertical drive process in
and slanted well model was developed and
conjunction with horizontal well.
incorporated into a black oil simulator, to predict
Hongyin and Peimao4 presented important effects of potential production rates for such wells. The
slowing down the oil production decline, increasing slanted/horizontal well model can be used to
the sweep efficiency and improving oil recovery by calculate the productivity index based on the length
horizontal drilling sidetracks for the Huizhou and and location of the wellbore within the block for
Weizhou oil fields in the South China Sea. They each reservoir grid block penetrated by the
indicated that this method has great potential and slanted/horizontal well. The model is easy to use
wide applying prospect to improve the development and can simulate the performance of multiple
SPE 106657 3

horizontal/slanted wells in any geometric datum depth of 3200 m.ss is 5959 Psia and average
combination within reservoirs. daily production from formation A is around 10.2
Mbbl/d. Recoverable oil in the north flank is more
Islam and Chakma8 addressed the problem of both
than the south flank. Performance of reservoir oil
physical and mathematical modeling of horizontal
pressure indicates that the wells don’t have any
wellbores. Most papers published in this area deals
effective lateral communication although they have
with simplistic representation of the horizontal
limited drainage area.
wells. These models neglect radial flow near the
wellbore and, more importantly, the multiphase Reservoir Description and Fluid Characteristic
fluid dynamics in the wellbore. Only recently, Stone Formation A and B of this reservoir are generally
et al. reported the first paper dealing with wellbore located in region possess a variety of lithology
dynamics in a horizontal well. In modeling gravity changes in horizontal and vertical directions. This
drainage in a bitumen reservoir, they used Darcy's point is evident in reservoir pressure behavior in the
law for describing fluid flow in the reservoir and case of lack horizontal communication between the
momentum, mass and energy balance of emulsion wells. As far as the fracture system has not been
(oil and water) and gas in the wellbore. However, distributed uniformly along the formation, despite
they used productivity index concept for other formations, the main factor in distribution of
representing radial flow near the wellbore. Then, hydrocarbons and production from this formation
Collins et al. represented a simplistic model for could be the capability of the reservoir rock, thus
simulating horizontal well flow in a field. They recognition of the reservoir rock and simulation of
used Darcy's law in a dual porosity representation its parameters either horizontally or vertically is
of a horizontal well. This model unnecessarily vitally important. In other hand, layering of such a
introduces simplicity and does not deal with reservoir should be more precise than the other ones
wellbore dynamics with any rigorousness. and productive, low productive and non productive
Recently, Jelen used a new technique for solving layers should be separated accurately in order to
fluid flow equations in different domains find the best completion layers for new wells.
independently. This method was particularly useful
for modeling a horizontal well in which several Different Analysis and experiments performed on
domains exhibit very different types of fluid flow. fluid properties, drill steam test and flow test imply
that reservoir fluid is moderately heavy oil with 22
Saputelli9 et al results indicated that proper API degrees. The reservoir is undersatured at
production and reservoir management policies such original reservoir condition (5959 Psia at 225˚F).
as controlled drawdown, producing wells at rates The fluid is high in sulphur content (4.1 weight
below the critical rates and low gas-oil-ratio percent) and high in asphaltene (7 weight percent)
production using numerical simulation will promote that sulphur values here is more than other layers in
efficient gravity segregation process and subsequent the reservoir. The bubble point is 1334 psia at
optimum final recovery. Combination of infill 205˚F and the producing gas oil ratio is 384 Scf/Stb.
horizontal wells and adequate lifting mechanisms The oil formation volume factor is 1.2495 Rb/Stb at
yielded the recovery of additional reserves. 205˚F and viscosity is 3.7857 Cp. The formation
Field Description water has a high salinity between 18000-20000 ppm
NaCl equivalents.
One of the Iranian fields is investigated in this
paper. Information about the reservoir such as Structure
history of the field, reservoir specification The areal extension of this field on formation A
(structure, stratigraphy), drive mechanism and fluid horizon is 34×5 km2. Based on last reservoir study,
characteristic are mentioned below. four out of nine layers are in porous and rich oil that
Field History are surrounded by compact layers. Four wells are in
formation A, one horizontal and three vertical wells.
This field was discovered in 1963 by drilling the
It is found that 57 percent of production from this
first exploration well and started to produce in
formation comes from horizontal well.
1991. Average initial pressure in formation A at
4 SPE 106657

Reservoir has asymmetric anticline form that tilt in layer has a good reservoir communication in the
the north flank is more than in the south flank but it west part of the reservoir; it would be possible to
is gentle. WOC level in north and south flanks are increase the potential of production from this layer.
different due to tilted formation. Average thickness In this layer, the thickness increases from north to
of formation A is about 167.64 meters (550 feet) the south flank in the eastern part of the field but the
and total area 31484 acre. difference in the thickness is little and it becomes
negligible in the central part. Some little variations
Stratigraphy
in thickness could be observed in the western part
Reservoir is mainly divided into two formations A of the field too but this variation is small too.
and B. Subsequently, formation A is divided into
Layer Three acts as a basin of formation A and it is
three and formation B is divided into six layers. The
easily recognized in the entire field due to a high
second layer in formation A is oil rich where the
porous layer above it. In western part of this layer
horizontal well is located. Characteristics of three
the greatest amount of hydrocarbon has been found
layers of formation A are as follows.
by petrophysical evaluation. The average thickness
Layer one is the region between the beginning of of this layer is about 52 meters in the whole field.
the formation A and the last shale layer of the upper Semi thickness maps prepared in this field show
layer. From lithology points of view, it includes that this layer gets thicker towards east of the field
white to white-cream limestone, pyrite containing, although the difference is about 20 percent.
Wackestone/Mudstone Π/І and also gray to brown Lithologically, this layer consists of white to cream
Shaly/Marl layers. At the base of this layer there is relatively tight limestone (they can be drilled
a grain stone/limestone layer which contains Illite. relatively hard), Arzhili of type І/ П containing a
This layer can be considered as an indicator of little bit of dolomite and marl, with recrystalization
gradual transitional change of less deep ocean and dead oil in some parts.
limestone of formation A to deeper ocean shales of
Gurpi formation which itself indicates the sequence Fracture Variation in the Reservoir
development of the ocean towards the land. Four wells have been cored in this field. Study of
Maximum amount of marl and shale are located in different cores indicates the existence of a variety of
this layer and it increases from north to the south open and partially filled fractures in layer П, Ш, ΙV
flank in the eastern part of the field. In the central and VΙ. Horizontal drilling has improved production
part of the field, most of wells have a thick rate to almost four times of the same vertical well.
thickness of this layer. Comparing the amount of loss circulation for each
The top section of layer 2 is the last shale layer of well shows a direct relation with the presence of
the upper parts of formation A and despite the first fracture systems. For the purpose of accessing
7 to 10 meters it has an excellent porosity, so that it fracture system, FMS log was run in one well
can be recognized as a loose layer by the between the top of the formation B and bottom of
geolograph while drilling. The average of effective the reservoir which indicates a variety of fractures
porosity of this layer is about 13.7 percent and its and vugs.
drilled thickness is 101 meters. Lithologically, this Drive Mechanism
layer consists of white to cream limestone of type П
The original reservoir pressure is estimated around
and П / І, cream to light brown type of П / Ш and
5959 Psia at datum depth of 3200 m.ss and reservoir
Ш/І, small grained crystals, Wackestone,
temperature of 107.22˚C. The reservoir was over
Packestone dolomite. This layer has variable WOC
pressure and undersatured. During the life of the
level and the differences in this level between the
field, most of the oil production would have been
northern and southern flank is about 100 meters.
due to expansion of the oil and pore volume
The study made on the different WOC levels in
compaction as the pressure dropped. As the
several wells indicates that the southern nose of this
production continues, water rises slowly in the
layer has been filled with water. Well-31 has a
layers. These production mechanisms are efficient
variety of high production rate, about four times of
and enable recoveries exceed. As long as the
an ordinary well, due to horizontal drilling. This
SPE 106657 5

pressure is sufficient to permit the wells to flow, we function.

could expect that this field would continue to Comparison between Figure-6 and Figure-7 shows
produce to a quite higher recovery factor. that changes in the trend of curves has occurred at
Reservoir Simulation Study the same time in 2002. By increasing the oil
production as we expected, the reservoir pressure
To simulate this sector model, Computer modeling
goes down further. Because of the existing
group (CMG) black-oil simulator is used to perform
constraint (less than actual capability of the
this work. To evaluate the effect of horizontal
reservoir) none of the curves, before and after 2002,
length, type of injection fluids, well locations,
have normal trend. Low oil production rate in both
different scenarios were studied. Variable grid
wells caused reservoir pressure doesn’t decline so
systems are used in this model. One rock type is
much. Also, two months shut in period of both
defined for the whole reservoir. Table-1 lists the
wells (31 and 27) lead to support the pressure
exact dimensions of the reservoir model, grid-block
around the wells so Bottom Hole Pressure increases
information and reservoir properties and Table-2
considerably. Here upon, in the short term (before
shows the actual well specifications used in this
large amount of production), wells produce in high
model. Figure-1 and Figure-2 display graphically
rate but after a while trend of curves approach to a
the water-oil relative permeability and gas-liquid
normal trend.
relative permeability curves, respectively. These
two curves were generated from 32 samples in In the next step, different scenarios in staggered line
Special Core Analysis report using SCAL option in well pattern as well as the effect of gas injection in
Eclipse. Also, the results were checked by top layer or water injection in bottom layer are
Normalized and De-normalized equations. The examined (See Table-3 and Table-4)
horizontal permeability, Kh, is 3.66 md, whereas
Impact of Horizontal Well Length Variation
the vertical permeability, Kv, is 11.16 md. Three
dimensional view of whole reservoir is shown in Figure-8 displays that when horizontal section
Figure-3. To generate 3D view of reservoir in Imex lengthens two times, the oil recovery factor
format, RMS model is used. After generating the increases 43 percent in 2002. The more the
reservoir model in CMG, history match was done horizontal length the greater the drainage area so oil
by tuning physical properties of the rock. The result recovery factor and cumulative oil increases
of pressure history match and real data is shown in drastically. Further production causes further
Figure-4. This Figure shows the validity of the pressure drop (see Figure-9). Figure-10 displays
model, so it could be used to predict behavior of water cut in longer well length is less than other
reservoir through next 20 years. Cases. Length of horizontal well is proportional
with water breakthrough time; it means that in
Figure-5 also shows that cumulative oil production longer horizontal length, water breakthrough is
in horizontal well is approximately 3.5 times greater delayed.
than oil rate in vertical well. In late 2001 and at the
beginning of 2002 both wells are shut in for two Impact of Anisotropy Variation
months. Cumulative oil production shows an Figure-11 shows that the less the anisotropy is the
additional increase after two months shut in, more fluid flow improves in vertical directions.
especially for horizontal well. The oil recovery Now if anisotropy ratio keeps constant with
factor prediction has two trends, in the first trend different values in vertical and horizontal directions
through 1995- 2002, oil recovery factor goes up as a results display completely different graphs.
straight line due to approximately constant Comparison between Cases A-1-2 and A-4 (effects
production rate but in the second trend after 2002 it of good permeability) is illustrated in Figure-12.
increases with a higher slope because after 2002
production rate constraint in the model is increased. Impact of Porosity Variation
Generally without any rate constraint (as far as In Cases B-1, B-2 and B-3 porosity changed.
drive mechanism is natural depletion) trend of oil Figure-13 shows cumulative oil production trend
recovery factor versus time must be an exponential which supports the same results of water cut and
6 SPE 106657

average reservoir pressure. more benefits e.g. further oil rate, less water cut,
higher oil recovery factor or higher cumulative oil
Impact of Well Types
production and less pressure drawdown. Similar
To evaluate the advantages of horizontal well, approaches are achieved from horizontal producer
performances of Cases C-1 and C-2 are compared. except that more pressure drop due to more
In Case C-1, well 31 is horizontal and well 27 is production. Figure-18 indicate that oil rate in C-3 is
vertical. In Case C-2, well 31 is converted to a the highest while C-4 goes down sharply because
vertical well. Figure-14 displays oil recovery factor one vertical injection well is not enough to
versus time. The amount of oil recovery factor is compensate production by four horizontal producer
55.76, 53.16 and 48 percent respectively in year wells. In other Cases such as C-6, C-7 and C-8
1998, 2000 and 2002. Water cut in these Cases is increasing oil rate indicate that injection is good
shown in Figure-15. The drainage area in Case C-1 enough to improve oil rate.
is greater than Case C-2 and average reservoir
In Figure-19 the most pressure drop is caused by
pressure in Case C-2 is less than C-1 (see Figure-
Case C-4, because production rate (from four
16).
horizontal producer with a limit support by means
Table-4 summarize different well pattern with
of vertical injection well) is high. In Case C-6,
different fluid types to highlight the impact of
injection well can cover producer’s support and
horizontal well as a producer and as an injector
keep average reservoir pressure in a better situation
well. Those cases which are specified by capital
than the others.
letter C have a gas injection well in the center.
Also, those scenarios specified with the capital Figures-20 shows water cut in gas injection Cases.
letter D have a water injection well. All Cases Water cut curve for C-4 increases drastically.
consist of one injection and four producer wells and Producer wells lead to high oil production rate and
only number of vertical and horizontal wells are high oil production leads to early water
changed. Producer wells are completed in the breakthrough so WOC has moved up faster. This
second layer and injection well is completed in top Case shows the least cumulative gas (see Figure-
layer in gas injection cases and bottom layer in 21).
water injection cases. In water injection Cases, results display exactly the
In all Cases which have been studied initially only same trends that were followed in gas injected
wells number 31 and 27 exist, then at 2002 three Cases.
new hypothetical horizontal wells which are called
Comparison between Gas and Water Injection
40 and 50 as producer with a central injection well
are added to the model. For comparison between gas and water injection
Figure-17 displays gas injection Cases. Case C-3 performance, C-3 and D-3, C-5 and D-5 cases have
shows extremely perfect result, because of five been selected. Based of the results which are shown
horizontal well (four producer and one injection in Figure-22 and Figure-23, in all Cases, gas
well) in the well pattern. Horizontal injection well injection shows better performance compared with
injects gas in the top layer and pushes the oil toward water injection.
the second layer where horizontal producers are
located. As mentioned previously, horizontal Conclusions
producer wells affect on maximum drainage area
and causes oil produce as much as possible. 1-Both in gas and water injection projects, to
Comparison between cases C-4 and C-3 shows increase volumetric displacement efficiency,
more than 100 percent decrease in the performance horizontal well is recommended and of course other
after 20 years in C-4. In Case C-3 oil production parameters such as well length, amount of gas
from four horizontal wells is fed by one horizontal injection and etc. must be optimized based on the
well whereas in C-4 one vertical injection well has reservoir conditions.
less power to push oil toward producer wells. 2-Based on the results of this simulation study,
Consequently horizontal injection well can cause increasing porosity and decreasing anisotropy will
SPE 106657 7

improve horizontal well performances. 8. M.R, Islam “comprehensive physical and

numerical modeling of a horizontal well”, SPE
3-Using horizontal wells compared with
20627, September 1990.
conventional wells will cause less field pressure
drop and consequently less water coning. 9. L. Saputelli, “Modeling Of Horizontal Well And
4-In mature fields, due to larger drainage area of Lifting Mechanisms To Improve Ultimate
horizontal wells, oil flow rate may increase. Of Recovvery In A Depleted Field In Lake Maracaibo,
course, sector model simulation for optimizing well Venezuela”, SPE 30746, October 1995.
conditions must be performed before drilling.
5-For each reservoir conditions, there is an optimum
length of horizontal section which beyond that,
lengthen horizontal section of the well has no effect
on IOR.
Acknowledgments:
I would like to thank Dr.V.A.Sajjadian from R.I.P.I
for his help during this research.
References:
1.G. Palasthy, and V. Pipicz, and I.Munkacsi, et al
“Horizontal Wells in the Algyo Field, Hungary-
Evaluation of a Successful IOR Project”, SPE
39644, 1998
2. M. Greaves, S. R. Ren and T. X. Xia “New Air
Injection Technology for IOR Operations in
Light and Heavy Oil Reservoirs”, University of
Bath, England, SPE 57295, 2000.

3. P.L.McGuire, B.M.Holt, BP”Unconventional

Miscible EOR Experience at Prudhoe Bay: A
project Summary”, Spe 82140, 2003.
4. Zheng Hongyin and Zhang Peimao, “Improved
Oil Recovery of Edge and Bottom Water Reservoir
by Drilling Horizontal Sidetracks”, CNOOC
Research Center, SPE 64511, 2000.
5. A.K.Sarkar, P.S.Sarathi, And A.R.Strycker,
BDM-Oklahoma “Use of Horizontal Wells for
Improving Steam flood performance of a Thin,
Low-Permeability Heavy-Oilreservoir”, SPE/DOE
27806, 1994.
6. Hodaie, Homayoun, Bagci, A.S., Middle East
Technical University “Polymer-Augmented
waterflooding in a Reservoir with Bottom-water
zone”, SPE 25633, 1993.
7. M-M Chang, “Predicting Horizontal / Slanted
Well Production by Mathematical Modeling”, SPE
18854, March 1989.
8 SPE 106657

Table-1: Field study description Table-3: Specification of different cases

Grid system Case Length of horizontal Investigated parameters
3D Cartesian System section
A-1 1630
Total number of blocks 6450 Length of Horizontal
A-2 2445
X-Dimension (ft) 50∗230 well
A-3 3260
Y-Dimension (ft) 43∗ 160 Permeability
permeability
Z-Dimension (ft) 3∗(105,331,171) A-4 Kv = 111.6, Kh = 36.6
Reservoir properties Anisotropy
A-1-1 0.25
Initial pressure(psia) 5959 A-1-2 0.57 Anisotropy
Initial temperature(ºF) 225 A-1-3 1
Initial S0(%) 75 A-1-4 3
Rock properties Porosity
B-1 0.11
Porosity 0.137 Porosity
B-2 0.137
Kh (mD) 3.66 B-3 0.2
Kv (mD) 11.16 Well pattern Effect of Existing
Anisotropy 0.57 Horizontal Well-
C-1 Predicted result in 20
Fluid properties Undersaturated years in two well
Leng. Of hoz. section (ft) 1630.5 C-2 patterns

Table-2: Actual well specification Table-4: Specification of well pattern

Well Name 31 27 No. of No. of Fluid
Case Well Pattern Horizontal Vertical Injection
Well type Horizontal Vertical Well Well Type
TVD (ft) 10826.77 11195.86 C-3 Gas
5 0
Horizontal section 1630.5 0 D-3 Water
C-4 Gas
Depth 18 5/8 170 143 4 1
D-4 Water
of 13 3/8 5353 5490
C-5 Gas
casing 9 5/8 7696 7596 1 4
D-5 Water
Length of liner 7'' 3448 3809 C-6 Gas
2 3
D-6 Water
C-7 4 Gas
1
D-7 Water
C-8 Gas
0 5
D-8 water
SPE 106657 9

1.2
1
Kr(fraction)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Sw(fraction)

Figure -1: Water oil relative permeability curve Figure-4: Pressure match result

1.2
1
K r (fractio n )

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Sg (fraction)

Figure-2: Gas liquid relative permeability curve Figure-5: Cumulative oil in predicted result

Figure-6: Oil recovery factor in predicted result

Figure-3: Three dimensional view of Resevoir

10 SPE 106657

Figure-7: Pressure versus time in predicted result Figure-10: Water cut in Cases A-1, A-2 and A-3

Figure-8: Oil recovery factor in Cases A-1, A-2 and A-3 Figure-11: Cumulative oil in Cases A-1-1,A-1-2, A-1-3, A-1-4

Figure-9: Average reservoir pressure in Cases A-1, A-2 Figure-12: Oil recovery factor in Cases A-4, A-1-2
and A-3
SPE 106657 11

Figure-13: Cumulative oil in Cases B-1, B-2, B-3 Figure-16: Average reservoir pressure in Cases C-1, C-2

Figure-14: Oil recovery factor in Cases C-1, C-2 Figure-17: Oil recovery factor in gas injection cases

Figure-15: Water cut in Cases C-1, C-2 Figure-18: Oil rate in gas injection cases
12 SPE 106657

Figure-19: Average reservoir pressure in gas injection Figure-22: Average reservoir pressure in Cases C-5 and
cases D-5

Figure-20: Water cut in gas injection cases Figure-23: Average reservoir pressure in Cases C-3 and
D-3

Figure-21: Cumulative gas in gas injection cases