SPE 104619

Performance Evaluation of a Reservoir Under EOR Recovery: Intisar ‘D’ Reef,

Concession 103, Libya
M.J. Vilela, SPE, Repsol YPF, and Mohammed Gharsalla, Mohammed ElGhmari, and Abdulhamid Majdoub, Zuetina Oil
Co.

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

cumulative oil production was 1,218 MMSTB, of which
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 15th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and 823 MMSTB were driven due to gas injection as
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Kingdom of Bahrain, 11–14 March
2007. secondary and tertiary recovery methods while 395
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
MMSTB were produced due to waterflooding.
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
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 This is one of the biggest EOR processes worldwide.
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
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper This paper discusses the strategy used to produce this
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than reservoir and also to compute the produced oil recovery
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
from the different drive mechanism employed.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Introduction
Abstract
The Intisar ‘D’ reservoir is a carbonate reef of Paleocene The Intisar “D” reef reservoir is a carbonate bioherm reef
origin with no appreciable flow barrier. This is an under of Paleocene origin and which lies within Concession
saturated reservoir with an oil of 40 °API and solution 103, where seismic operations were begun in 1967; It is
gas oil ratio of 595 SCF/STB. The reservoir, having 452 located in the east-central part of the Great Socialist
ft of net pay, is at a datum of 9,000 ftSS with an initial Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah (see Figure 1), 220
OOIP of 1.76 billion stock tank barrels and initial miles (354 Km) south of Benghazi and 525 (845 Km)
reservoir pressure of 4,257 psia. east-southeast of Tripoli and it is part of the prolific Sirte
A series of very successful reservoir management Basin. Intisar ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ belong to the same
strategies have been applied in order to optimize and concession 103; Intisar ‘A’ was first discovered in April
increase the production capacity and reserves. So far 1967 with first well A1 at a well depth of 9,417 ft; the
69.2 % (1.2 MMSTB) of OOIP has been recovered third exploratory well drilled in concession 103
mainly due to implementation of an EOR project. discovered Intisar ‘C’ in September 1967 and fourth well
discovered Intisar ‘D’ .
From the commencement of production in 1969 up to
1981, Intisar ‘D’ was under bottom water injection for
reservoir pressure maintenance and crestal hydrocarbon
gas injection for pressure maintenance, gas
conservation and enhanced oil recovery; then water
injection was halted, but gas injection has been
continued successfully until now. Against common
knowledge, oil recovery to gas (immiscible) was more
effective than water flooding.

For analysis purposes the reservoir was divided in two

portions: Water Swept Zone (WSZ, from the base of the
reservoir up to the level of WOC in 1981) and Gas
Swept Zone (GSZ, from the level of WOC in 1981 to the
top of the reservoir) to separately evaluate the
displacement sweep efficiencies. Gas injection at the
crest of the reservoir has been an extremely successful
drive mechanism, although this process has been Figure 1. Location Map.
immiscible most of the time. To December 2005
2 SPE 104619

It was discovered in October 1967 with the completion of to get into contact with oil left behind after waterflooding (Sor
Well D1 which encountered the oil-bearing Upper to water injection). When GOC reached the location of WOC
Paleocene carbonate reservoir at a depth of 8,946 ft and at 1981, the tertiary process commenced; according to
the WOC at 9,834 ft with 888 ft of gross productive reservoir simulation model and some log measurement tertiary
interval1,2,3. recovery began between years 2002-2003 in different reservoir
locations.
The reservoir contains under-saturated oil of 40º API
and the Original Oil In Place (OOIP) has been estimated Table 1 list the 103D reservoir parameters and PVT
as 1.76 billion stock tank barrels. There is no evidence of Properties.
flow barriers inside this volumetric reservoir of
homogeneous properties with average porosity of 22% Initial Reservoir Pressure, psig 4257
and average permeability of 200mD. The reservoir Saturation Pressure, psig 2224
thickness ranges from 250 ft to 1,000 ft. In a plan view Solution GOR, SCF/STB 595
Intisar ‘D’ looks circular with a diameter of 3 miles (see Oil Viscosity at initial pressure, cp 0.46
Figure 2). Initial Bo RB/STB 1.315
Reservoir Temperature, F 226
Oil gravity, °API 40
Average horizontal permeability, mD 200
Average net porosity, percent 22
Rock compressibility, vol/vol/psi 3.5 x 10-6
Water compressibility, vol/vol/psi 3.6 x 10-6

Table 1. Reservoir/Fluid Properties.

Well Completions
Development wells drilled in Intisar ‘D’ were normally
completed with 9 5/8-in. casing set at or near the top of the
reef. Below that point the completions differ according to the
purpose of the well. Most producing wells have been
completed by drilling 500 to 700 ft of 8 ½-in. open hole below
the 95/8-in. casing shoe. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, 7-in. and 5-
Figure 2. Structural Map
in liner were run in producers to control GOR.
For water injection wells completions vary according to
Discovery and Development
whether the well is a surface or a dump flood injector. In
The field development began in June 1968 and was completed
surface injectors an 81/2-in. hole was drilled from the 95/8-in.
in May 1970 with the drilling of 36 wells, 13 producers, 16
casing shoe to a point about 100 ft above the oil-water contact.
water injectors and 7 gas injectors. Most of the wells were
Seven-inch liner is cemented at that depth and a 6-in. hole is
completed openhole with 9 5/8-in casing just penetrating
drilled another 300 ft to the base of the reef porosity. Upper
porosity at the top of the structure. Water injection was
dump flood injectors are completed like surface injectors
implemented at the bottom of the reservoir and started in
except for the additional perforations in water source beds
March 1969 while crestal gas injection began in January 1970,
above the reef. The lower dump flood injection well
when the first of the four 40,000-hp gas-turbine driven
completion differs in that an 81/2-in. hole is drilled completely
centrifugal compressors was commissioned, each capable of
through the reef to the base of the underlying Heira shale.
injecting 250 MMSCF/D of gas at a surface injection pressure
Seven-inch liner is set at this point, and a 6-in. hole is drilled
of about 3,500 psig.
from the 7-in. shoe through the Heira carbonate water source
This “sandwich scheme” lasted up to 1981 when water
interval.
injection was halted and gas injection continued until today.
The main reason for stopping water injection was the result of
Mode of Operation
the comparative evaluation between water and gas swept
During field development the mode of operation has changed
efficiency that showed the latter being more efficient than the
several times: from October 1968 to March 1969, natural
former, and the possibility to continue gas injection in the
depletion ; then, from March 1969 to January 1970,
volume of the reservoir already swept by waterflooding
secondary recovery with bottom water injection; next, from
(tertiary oil recovery). This mode of operation defined two
February 1970 to September 1981, secondary recovery
zones into the reservoir: Water Swept Zone (WSZ), from the
process with bottom water injection and crestal gas injection;
original oil water contact (OOWC ~ 9500 ft) up to water oil
from October 1981 to December 2002, secondary recovery
contact in 1981 (WOC@1981 ~ 9200 ft ) and Gas Swept
crestal gas injection and finally, from January 2003 until now
Zone (GSZ), everything else. Therefore, the mode of reservoir
tertiary oil recovery with gas injection 4,5,6,7.
operation changed: gas injection to continue at the crest, so
GOC to continue moving down, and water production was
increased on purpose so WOC could move down to allow gas
 SPE 104619 3

1981 2005
Gas Injector Producer Wa ter Injector
Gas Injector
Producer

Sorg= 10%
Gas Swept Zone
GOC
Sorg= 10%

OWC@1981 OWC@1981
Tertiary Gas Swept Zone Sorg= 15%
Sorw= 28% GOC

Wa ter Swept Zone

Sorw= 28%

Figure 3. Schematic representation of EOR project in

Intisar ‘D’

Secondary Recovery Process

Water Swept Zone
Water injection was operating between 1969 up to 1981 in
WSZ. Total water injected was 676.7 MMSTB through 16
wells, most of them flank wells. The water injected was fresh
water. One of the standard ways to measure WOC in a casing
well is using logs like Thermal Decay Time, TDT, that records
the thermal neutron capture cross section of the formation by Figure 4. C/O log results in four wells in Intisar ‘D’
measuring the thermal neutron’s rate of decay; in saline water,
due to the presence of chlorine (the strongest neutron absorber
of the common earth elements) the TDT shows a big jump that Gas Swept Zone
differentiates water from oil; in Intisar ‘D’ because of the huge Gas injection, as a secondary process, has been working from
amount of fresh water injected into the reservoir and their 1970 up to 2002 (in 2002 GOC reached WOC at 1981; so any
ulterior mix-up with formation water, this method failed to further oil production is attributed to gas swept in the reservoir
identify properly WOC. Therefore, the location of WOC must volume previously flooded by water, consequently tertiary gas
rely on the full field mathematical reservoir simulation model drive). According to slim tube test, Benham type multiple
(an approximate location for the WOC at full field scale); for a contact test and P-X diagram of swelling test, the recovery
specific WOC location, in a particular well, a cone model for mechanism to gas injection is multiple contact vaporizing gas
each well was built which properly history matched allows drive; this gas drive is then an immiscible process. By 1979
establish the WOC location. most of the wells experienced gas breakthrough, a clear
indication of miscibility lost. In the next section, the issue
With the location of WOC at 1981, at an average value of about miscibility will be discussed in more detail.
9200 ft for the full field and with the initial WOC, estimated From the beginning of gas injection, a fraction of it has been
from original open hole logs (GR, SP and resistivity logs) at flowing to the top of the reservoir, building a secondary gas
9500 ft, the WSZ and consequently the GSZ were well defined cap (this is under saturated oil) and the other gas fraction has
and their respective OOIP were computed. been produced (gas cycling or gas produced after oil
From reservoir simulation modelling the oil production was vaporization). As the gas cap is growing, GOC has been
assigned to the WSZ and GSZ. The recovery factor for moving down pushing oil to well’s perforations. From the late
waterflooding in the WSZ was estimated as 48.5% with a 80’s all wells had high GOR values and to control this gas
residual oil saturation of 28%. production, location of GOC is a must. Measurement of GOC
Last year, in 2005, C/O logs8 were used for the first time to is done comparing open hole porosity (using Formation
locate WOC in four wells and they gave us very promising Density Log, FDC, or Neutron Porosity Log, CNL) run before
results. This log could not be used before because of the the well was cased, around 1967-1970, and cased hole neutron
embargo over Libya which banned the use of the new version porosity (CNL), run at the moment the GOC needs to be
of C/O tool that was suitable for Intisar ‘D’ wells diameters. measured; these two curves must be super imposed in the
Theoretically, a C/O log must be able to measure a clear WOC reservoir water section and the depth where they diverge, is
independent of the water salinity, as its functionality principle the depth of the GOC.
is based on the difference in Carbon to Oxygen Ratio, which is
very different in water and oil. This difference was effectively
seen in the wells it was run.
4 SPE 104619

According to reservoir performance and using the full field Component Injected Injected Injected Injected
reservoir model, the recovery factor to gas injection up to 1968- 1973- 1981- 1988-
December 2002 (end of gas injection as secondary recovery 1972 1980 1987 present
process) was evaluated as 81%, which means the remaining (Mole (Mole (Mole (Mole
oil saturation to gas injection is 10%. %) %) %) %)
N2 0.75 0.64 0.50 0.61
C1 72.31 76.02 77.14 81.65
This extremely good recovery efficiency can be explained due CO2 2.75 3.44 3.30 4.23
to the performance of three phenomena: phase effect, gravity C2 13.61 12.84 11.81 11.36
effect and swelling effect. C3 7.23 5.20 4.99 1.65
Phase effect: dry gas injected tends to vaporize some of the iC4 1.00 0.68 0.63 0.18
intermediate components –sometimes some of the heavy ones nC4 1.53 0.91 0.82 0.23
– out of the oil remaining behind the initial gasflood front. So, iC5 0.43 0.12 0.16 0.05
phase effects strips oil as the dry gas picks up intermediate nC5 0.32 0.10 0.11 0.03
components from reservoir oil,
C6+ 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01
Gravity effect: in Intisar “D”, flow is vertical and due to large
pay, gravity drainage stabilizes gasflood front preventing
Table 2. Gas composition injected in Intisar ‘D’.
viscous fingering in the reservoir; in this way, a huge gas cap
is being built with a pretty homogeneous front pushing oil
Comparing the light components (C1 + N2) composition of
down.
each solvent, as time progresses, show that gas injected is
Swelling effect: dissolution of gas in oil phase under pressure
getting liner, losing the heavier components going from
gives rise to swelling of oil which reduces oil viscosity
73.06% of C1 + N2 in 1968-1972 to 76.66% during 1973-
making easy for oil to move; in addition swelling reduces
1980 to 77.64% from 1981 to 1987 and finally to 83.60% from
interfacial tension between oil and gas, reducing capillary
1988 to the present.
pressure and residual oil saturation. The swelling effect is
proportional to pressure: higher the pressure, then higher the
swelling effect.
Figure 5 shows simultaneously MMP and reservoir pressure
for 103D EOR project over all production time.
Miscibility
Miscibility of injected solvent in oil is a unique function of Reservoir Pressure
MMP
hydrocarbon and solvent involved and pressure environment. RESERVOIR PRESSURE / MMP
In an immiscible process gas conning and channelling and 5000

early gas breakthrough often happen at the reservoir; this is 4800

due to higher gas mobility compared with oil mobility, so gas 4600

bypass oil and total efficiency of gas injection is seriously 4400

reduced. 4200

4000
As solvent has heavier components, the Minimum Miscibility
PRESSURE (psia)

3800

Pressure (MMP) is lower; as solvent has lighter components, 3600

MMP is higher. 3400

Oil and gas composition in a reservoir change with production 3200

for several reasons; in this case the main reason is because gas 3000

2800
injection composition is diferent from gas production 2600

composition. 2400

Between years 1970-1971, 23 slim tube tests were conducted 2200

using oil from 103D to determine MMP under different gas 2000
1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

compositions (13 different compositions). TIME

According to the gas compositions actually injected in Intisar
‘D’ and comparing it with the quality of the gas used in the
Figure 5. 103D Miscibility
slim tube tests and assuming no change in the hydrocarbon
composition during injection period, gas injection project can
be divided in four periods, each one with a different solvent
In 1992 a new set of slim tube test were conducted to evaluate
composition. Table 2 list the four periods and the
MMP. In all the tests included in this set the same gas
corresponding solvent compositions.
composition was used, as reported in Table 3.
SPE 104619 5

Component Injected Solvent in RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT

Lab Tset (Mol %) Reservoir production can be divided in three mayor stages:
N2 0.52 • Stage 1: 1969-1981 secondary recovery, initially with
H2S 0.50 bottom water injection and later also crestal gas
CO2 3.34 injection
C1 77.12 • Stage 2: 1981-2002 secondary recovery with crestal
C2 11.78 gas injection
C3 4.98 • Stage 3: 2003-now tertiary recovery crestal gas
IC4 0.63 injection.
NC4 0.82
IC5 0.16 In Tables 4, 5, 6, the cumulative production and injection for
NC5 0.11 each stage are given.
C6 0.04

Table 3. Gas composition injected in 1992 slim tube test. Oil Cumulative (MMSTB) 904.4
Water Cumulative (MMSTB) 71.9
Gas Cumulative (MMSCF) 1006.8
A full range of pressures were evaluated, from 4600 psi to Water Injected (MMSTB) 676.7
5200 psi (although for operational difficulties encountered in Gas Injected (MMSCF) 1482.3
the field, injection pressure could not be higher than 4800 psi);
as a result of these tests, the MMP was located somewhere in Table 4. Cumulative Production/Injection stage 1.
between 5000 and 5200 psi.

This gas composition is very similar to the one injected in the Oil Cumulative (MMSTB) 296.3
thrid period of the previous analysis (Period 1981-1987); Water Cumulative (MMSTB) 94.1
accoding to 1973 lab test, for this gas the MMP was 4600 psi Gas Cumulative (MMSCF) 1779.7
but due to change in gas composition, from 1973 to 1992 the Water Injected (MMSTB) -----
MMP increase more than 400 psi. Gas Injected (MMSCF) 2333.6

Table 5. Cumulative Production/Injection stage 2.

Summarizing lab results, the MMP has been different from the
beginning of the project due to the different composition of
injected gas and variation in fliuds composition into the Oil Cumulative (MMSTB) 17.5
reservoir; during a first period from 1968 to 1972 the MMP Water Cumulative (MMSTB) 46.2
was 4000 psi, during 1973-1980 MMP was 4250 psi; in period Gas Cumulative (MMSCF) 260.5
1981-1987 MMP reached more than 4500 psi and from then Water Injected (MMSTB) -----
up to now MMP has been increasing from 4600 psi up to more Gas Injected (MMSCF) 363.5
than 5000 psi at the present time.; this progressive increase in
MMP is the result of progressively leaner gas received from Table 6. Cumulative Production/Injection stage 3.
AGIP – Bu Attifel field -; therefore, miscibility phenomena
occurred during periods from 1969 to 1979, when reservoir
pressure was high enough. Stage 1: oil production rate reached maximum values,
sometimes more than 360 MSTB/D with an average of 210
Gas cycling MSTB/D. Pressure grown up after a fast decrease at the
Due to the mode of implementation of this EOR project, GOC beginning of the period due to lack of pressure support (water
is continuously moving down and reaching the upper injection started 6 months after production and gas injection 1
perforation of each of the wells; when that happens GOR year later; this pressure decrease at the beginning is the usual
increases very fast; also, gas channelling and coning can also behaviour for an under-saturated reservoir under these
speed up this time. In such situations gas starting to be conditions); at the end of this stage pressure was around
cyclined and systems lose energy; the positive effect is that 4000psia. The average field producing GOR remained very
this high GOR helps in lifting the wells, mainly in cases with close to the solution level until near the end of 1970, when it
high watercut, when fluids column could be too heavy to be increased to more than 900 SCF/STB as gas broke through
rising just with reservoir pressure. into wells with completion intervals near the top of the
In Intisar ‘D’, injected gas came from two sources: produced reservoir; this behaviour allows gas to spread across the top of
gas from itself and makeup gas. Approximately 2/3 of injected the reservoir before beginning downward gas displacement. In
gas comes from production and 1/3 from makeup gas. Due to the early life of the reservoir production, ineffective cement
compression capacity constraints, gas production has to be bond behind the 7” liners – installed to eliminate excess gas
controlled and, to present oil and water rates, the GOR of the production – contributed to increase GOR in certain wells.
field must be kept around 15,000 SCF/STB.
6 SPE 104619

The first indications of the excess in gas production occurred From these results, it is evident the exceptional efficiency of
at the beginning of 1979, when GOR rose to 3000 SCF/STB gasflood which has been reached due to reservoir properties
from 1650 SFC/STB in late 1978. Most of the well (homogeneous reservoir with no barriers) and a successful
experienced gas breakthrough at the end of this stage but reservoir management over the years.
global GOR was below 4000 SCF/STB; watercut increased
gradually to 20% in 1981 when water injection was When Tertiary Oil Recovery starts in the WSZ, the total
terminated; since then, watercut decreased and reached 10% at remaining oil in this zone was 395MMSTB; up to December
the end of stage 1. 2005 cumulative production has been 17.5 MMSTB, meaning
4.4% of the available oil for the tertiary process.
Stage 2: At the beginning of this stage oil production
experienced a drastic reduction to keep pressure above 4000 Historical production and injection performance of the Intisar
psia; therefore oil production was controlled to 60 MSTB/D ‘D’ field during 37 years of operation is illustrated in Figures
and pressure grown up confirmed the success of this oil 6, 7 and 8. The oil production rate has ranged from a high of
production policy; during 1986-1988 problems with facilities 390,000 STB/D in August 1975 to a low of 16,000 STB/D at
system forced a gas injection reduction which diminished the present time.
reservoir pressure therefore oil production rate was further
400000
constrained to 50 MSTB/D at the end of 1989 when the
previous lack of gas injection was reflected on reservoir
pressure behaviour. In 1993 another reduction in oil

OIL PRODUCTION RATE (STB)

300000
production was done to successfully increase pressure above
4000 psia; at the end of this stage, average pressure was
maintained around 4300 psia with an oil production of 18 200000
MSTB/D. During this stage GOR steadily increased to 7000
SCF/STB up to 1992; from 1993 to 2002 GOR remained
around the same values with a maximum of 9000 SCF/STB, 100000
nevertheless, at the end of this stage, GOR increased very fast
reaching 14000 SCF/STB; watercut remained around 10%
from 1983 to 1993; in 1994 several wells were completed 0

below the WOC and watercut started to increase steadily till 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
TIME
the end of 1996; in 1997, an aggressive well completion
program to deep perforations and prepare the reservoir for the
tertiary proccess began therefore watercut grown up to 65% by 5000

2002.

Stage 3: oil production has been controlled to 16 MSTB/D and

4000
PRESSURE (psia)

pressure has been stable at around 4400 psia during this stage.
GOR and Watercut experienced moderated increments going
from 12 to 15 MSCF/D and from 55 to 73% respectively.
3000

As previously mentioned, the reservoir has been divided into

two zones: WSZ and GSZ. Based on simulation results, OOIP
and cumulative oil production of each zone were computed 2000

separately. Table 7, summarizes results for each zone up to 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
TIME
December 2002 when secondary drive process finished and
began tertiary oil recovery. Figure 6. Oil production rate and pressure

ZONE OOI Np RECOVERY REMAINING RESIDUAL OIL

P FACTOR (%) OIL SATURATION
(MMSTB) (%)
WSZ 767 372 48.5 395 28
GSZ 994 805.5 81.0 188.5 10

Table 7. Cumulative oil production and remaining oil

saturation for WSZ and GSZ, up to 2002.
SPE 104619 7

20
Average gas injection rates exceeding 600 MMSCF/D were
attained at the end of 1979 after the fourth compressor was
16
installed.
At the end of July 1980, control of well D9 was lost during a
GOR (MSCF/STB)

12 workover. At that time the field was completely shut-in for

about 3 weeks for safety reasons, and efforts to kill D9 were
8 not completed successful until January 1981.
Since 1980, oil production rate dropped down to 70 MSTB/D
4 due to lack of injection. The production rate steadily decreased
till 1992; at the beginning of 1993, due to gas compression
0
problems, gas injection rate decline and production was cut
1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 back, down to 15 MSTB/D. After reservoir pressure build up,
TIME
oil production rate was increased by steps during last part of
80 1993 up to 30 MSTB/D; finally, for pressure conservation, oil
rate was reduced to 16 MSTB/D from 2002 up to the present.
From initial 13 producers, 7 gas injectors and 16 water injector
60 wells, between 1970 and 1984, eight wells were converted
from water injector wells to producers. During next 3 years
WATERCUT (%)

other 3 were also switched to producers. Currently there are 26

40
producers, 7 gas injectors and 3 shut-in wells.

20
Once gas is injected through any of the 7 gas injectors, a
fraction of this gas goes to the gascap (due to gravity
segregation) and the other fraction is produced. In the
0 production current there is also gas coming from the gas
1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 dissolved into the oil.
TIME
Figure 7. GOR and WCUT Performing a gas material balance, the total volume of the
gascap to December 2005 can be estimated as 1,858
400 MMMSCF.
On the other hand, to same date, for this volumetric reservoir,
350
31% of cumulative water injected has been produced.
WATER INJECTION RATE (MSTB/D)

300

250
Workover
One of the key issues related to the success of secondary and
200 tertiary process implemented in 103D is the workover strategy
150
used. After water shut-in, Intisar ‘D’ plan of exploitation
included continue with gas injection as a secondary process
100 and when GOC will reach WSZ, continue gas injection as
50
tertiary recovery process to swept oil left behind
waterflooding. As previously mentioned, Sor to water was
0 estimated to be around 28% instead Sor to gas around 10%; the
1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
TIME
difference between these two figures being the windows
opportunities for the tertiary process.
800

In general, wells were completed with two perforations, one at

700
the very bottom, to produce water and other just below the
GAS INJECTION RATE (MMscf/d)

600 WOC to produce oil through reverse coning. The purpose of

500
water production through bottom perforation is to expose oil
remaining from waterflooding to the injected gas allowing this
400 remaining oil to be produced. The upper perforation is located
300
just at the level of WOC so oil from the oil column can be
produced through reverse coning and also oil from WSZ can
200
be produced via oil vaporization; this location, just at the
100 WOC is preferred over a perforation in the oil column because
in this way time for gas to reach perforation is longer and
0

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

workovers can last more time, reducing operating cost.
TIME

Figure 9 shows a cartoon of well’s perforation with respect to

Figure 8. Water Injection and Gas Injection WOC and GOC.
8 SPE 104619

Figure 10. Transversal section of Intisar ‘D’ model

As previously mentioned, the driving mechanism of this EOR

project is gas injection, which came from two sources:
Figure 9. Well’s perforation in a typical well of Intisar ‘D’ production gas from itself and makeup gas. The two key
factors defining how long this project can be working are oil
remaining and makeup gas. Concerning the last item, from
field history, makeup gas came from AGIP gas production
As GOC and WOC are continuously moving down, the oil from a nearby field. The amount of makeup gas has been
column does so; that means frequent workovers need to be variable in time amounting for 170 MMSCF/D at the present
done, to chase the oil column in each well. At the present time, time; from this amount, a fraction is used to fuel and
the oil column has a variable thickness ranging from 30 to 50 consumption.
ft.
For reservoir forecast, three different scenarios were drawn:
according to what AGIP sent to us as probably gas forecast in
Forecast 2003 which is Intisar ‘D’ proved reserves, a total makeup gas
To compute the recovery efficiency of Intisar ‘D’, a reservoir of 170 MMSCF/D that we consider probable reserves and an
model was used. Once this model was history matched, it was ideal case with unlimited makeup gas that is our possible
used to forecast possible scenarios of exploitation. reserves. Based on these assumptions simulations were run
The reservoir model is a black oil model with areal gridding of and the results are plot in Figures 11, 12.
47 x 44 and 40 layers; the grid used is corner point geometry.
There is one reliable PVT sampled in well D02 in year 1968.
The history match includes 37 years of production and
injection data. Automatic initialization was used with initial
reservoir pressure of 4,257 psia at reservoir datum of 9,000 ft.,
assuming connate water in each layer as irreducible according
to 7 real permeability tables.
Figure 10 shows a transversal section of Intisar ‘D’ model
exhibiting oil saturation in year 2000.
SPE 104619 9

Proven Reserves Table 8 summarizes the result of these simulations.

Probably Reserves
Possible Reserves
CASE END OIL CUM @ REMAINING
1360 EOR END EOR RESERVES AT
(MMSTB) 12/2005
1340 Proven 06/2012 1266.0 47.8
Reserves
Probably 03/2013 1270.7 52.5
1320
Reserves
Possible 12/2023 1341.2 123.0
1300 Reserves
OPT (MMSTB)

1280 Table 8. Results from EOR scenarios for Intisar ‘D’

1260 In all cases, it is assumed the EOR project must be finished

once reservoir pressure falls below 4250 psia, which is the
1240
reason for the different time to end the three EOR forecasts.

1220
In December 2005, Intisar ‘D’ has produced 1,218 MMSTB of
oil, meaning a recovery factor of 69.2%; the three forecasts
shows Intisar ‘D’ is still capable of producing additional oil in
1200
a range from 50 to 125 MMSTB, depending on gas supply,
2005 2009 2013 2017 2021 2025
TIME
which implies its final recovery factor could be between 72.1
%and 76.3 % . Those recovery factor numbers are excellent
Figure 11. Forecast Oil Cumulative Production for any standard worldwide.

A final comment about Intisar ‘D’ after EOR project. This

Proven Reserves reservoir is capable of producing oil, as far as makeup gas can
Probably Reserves
Possible Reserves
be maintained, to an oil rate between 16 MSTB/D and 4
MSTB/D; furthermore, oil production can be sustained beyond
5000
2023 if makeup gas is maintained, though at low rate of
production. At the time makeup gas is less than 100
4800
MMSCF/D, EOR project must be stopped and gas cap
4600
blowdown must start to produce gas stored in the gas cap; the
reason for that being that insufficient gas injection made the
4400 phenomena involved in oil production failed so oil production
must be halted. Before gas cap blowdown starts, the reservoir
PRESSURE (psia)

4200
can still be produced on a “sandwich” phase injecting
4000
produced gas and shut-in well completions below WOC to
reduce as much as possible water production and reduce
3800 pressure decline rate; in this “sandwich” phase, the goal is to
produce as much oil as possible from the oil column; after this
3600 phase, gas cap blowdown must start. It is important to point
out that, once EOR is stopped and start gas cap blowdown or
3400
“sandwich” recovery, there is no way go get back to the EOR
3200
project, and the oil reserves in the reseroir will be definite lost;
the reason for this is that gas re-dissolution in oil is a very
3000 slow process and only occur at the surface contact between oil
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 and gas.
TIME

Figure 12. Forecast Reservoir Pressure

10 SPE 104619

Conclusions
1. Crestal high pressure gas injection has given
excellent results with a recovery factor of 81%.
2. Waterflood, although less effective than gas
injection, gave also excellent results comparable with
the more successful waterflooding projects around
the world with a recovery factor of 48.5%.
3. Gas injection has been an immiscible process more of
the time; the success of this process can be attributed
due to the combination of three main phenomena:
phase effect, gravity effect and swelling effect.
4. After three years of tertiary process in the WSZ the
results are in agreement with previously expected and
the performance is excellent.
5. Phase effect and Swelling effect, both phenomena
involved in this EOR project, are highly depended on
reservoir pressure: higher the pressure higher the
recovery.

Acknowledgement

Authors wish to express their appreciation to the management

of Zueitina Oil Company for permission to publish this paper.

Reference

1. DesBrisay, C.L. and Daniel, E,L.: “Supplemental

Recovery Development of the Intisar ‘A’ and ‘D’
Reef Fields, Libyan Arab Republic.”, J. Pet.Tech.,
July 1972
2. Brady, T. J., Campbell, N.D.J. and Maher, C.E.:
“Intisar ‘D’ Oil Field, Socialist People’s Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya.”. Paper presented at the AAPG
Symposium, Houston, April 1979.
3. DesBrisay, C.L., Gray, J.W. and Spivak, A.:
“Miscible Flood Performance of the Intisar ‘D’ Field,
Libyan Arab Republic.” J. Pet.Tech., August 1975
4. DesBrisay, C.L., Ghussein, B.F., Holst, P.H. and
Misellati, A.: “Review of Miscible Flood
Performance, Intisar ‘D’ Field, Socialist People’s
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.” J. Pet. Tech., August 1982.
5. Arifi, N.A.: ”Enhance Oil Recovery of the Intisar ‘D’
Reef Field”, OAPEC Reservoir Engineering Seminar,
Kuwait, Nov. 15-20, 1980
6. Chen, S.M., Smith, R.B., Arifi, N.A. and Reda, A.M.
: “Intisar ‘D’: A Succesful Major Enhanced Oil
Recovery Project in Libya”, 1st Technical
Symposium on Enhance Oil Recovery in Libya, May
1990.
7. Bzezi, B., Song, S.J., Reda, A.M., and Arifi, N.:
“High Pressure Crestal Gas Injection, Intisar ‘D’
Concession 103, Libyan Jamahiriya” 10th European
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, August
1999.
8. Vilela, M., Wihardjo, L., ElGhmari, M., Bassam, I.,
Saad, M.: “Formation Evaluation in Csed Holes
Improves Production”, Reservoir Optimization
Conference & Exhibition, Lybia, November 2006.