.

G
Sodety of PetroleumEfl@lom I
SFE 26937
Perhxmance Evaluation of Waterflood Project in Southern
West Virginia
$hahab Mohaghegh,G Samuel Ameri,* Kha~hayarAminian,G and Ujjal Chatterjee,
West Virginia U.
GSPE Members
COPYWIt 19S3, Sod@ of Petroteum Engineere, Inc.
This paper waa prepared for preaerttation a! the 19S3 Eeetern Regional Conference 6 Exhibition her in Pittsburgh, PA, U. S.A., 2-4 Novamber 1SS3.
This paper wee wlocted for preaentdon by Gn SPE Program Committea fotbwirq review of intormatbn contained in an ebatrect eubmitted by the author(e). Contents 01 the pecw,
as preamod, hew not been rdewed by mo socii d PeMeum EIWWW9 m .M a~- to CONOCI~ by t~ Gtiwa). T~ met~ial, w w-nt~, do= @ n~-ily ref~t
MY POCMIO+Iof the 9CCMY Of Pawdaum EIIIWI- M -, of ITW*. p- rN-WCJ III spE -iww W* a- to @l~t~ rw~ by Edltofiel *mffl*a of the ~ev
of Petmhwm Err@neem. Permii to copy b metdded roan tired of not more then M we & Iliuetretiom may nd be copied. The ebatrect ehoutd contain wnepicuou$acknowtedgrnent
of where end by whm ttro paper b preeanmd. Writs Librarian, SPE, P.O. Sox S3S838, Rkhdrdeon, T,! 7YM3-3KM,
U.S.A., Talex 1S3245 SPEUT.
ABSTRACT
Granny Creek oil field is located in
Southern West Virginia in the Appalachian
Basin. Rhas been producing from the Big Injun
formation. Primary production was initiated in
the 1920s and continued until early 1970s.
Around the mid 70s, new wet:: were drilled and
a waterflood project was started which is still in
progress. During the course of the waterflood
project, some problems were encountered.
These problems included, inconsistency in
sweep efficiency in adjacent patterns, and high
injection pressure.
In this field often two adjacent five spot
patterns with similar injection to por~ volume
ratios exhibit totally different oil ai~d water
production rates, While water does not
breakthrough in some patterns for months,
other patterns experience instantaneous water
breakthrough. Unusually high injection pressure
is obsewed almost throughout the field, and yet
some injection wells exhibit normal injection
pressures,
references and Illustrations at Ihe end of paper,
Presented in this paper is a summary of
approaches, methodologies, results and
conclusions that have been reached during the
performance evaluation of this waterflood
project. With the aid of resei :oir simulation
studies, some major heterogeneities were
ct~aracterized and modeled for this field.
Interpretations of seismic studies were used to
confirm the orientation of such heterogeneities
in the field.
BACKGROUND
Figure 1 shows the approximate location
of Granny Creek oil field in Southern West
Virginia. This field is producing from Big Injun
formation, which is about 1800-2000 feet deep.
Big Injun sandstone in this field has a net
thickness of about 35 to 45 feet and is capped
by Big Lime, a gas bearing limestone formation.
Big Injun sand, a Mississippian age formation,
has been divided into three layersl2, namely A,
B, and C. These subdivisions of Big Injun
couesponds to grain-size as well as density
variations.
429
.
2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A WATERFLOOD PROJECT IN SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA SPE26937
Layer A is the shallowest of the
three and is characterized by coarse grain-
size and low density values, with an average
thickness of 5 to 15 feet. Layer B, the mid
section, is also coarse grained which exhibits
high density anomalies. This layer is further
characterized by its small thickness (5-1Ofeet)
and low porosity and permeability values. The
most productive layer is C, which is the deepest
of the three, and is the thickest (20-35
feet). This section is fine-grain and is
characterized by low density sandstone. It has
better porosity and permeability definition when
compared to the other two. Big Injun has also
been divided into other subdivisions on the
basis of Depositional Environment and
Lithofacies. The typical division of Big Injun
sand are presented in Figure 2.
Primary production in Granny Creek
started in the early 1920s. It was not until the
late 1970s that waterflooding was initiated.
During the course of the waterflooding operation
two major phenomena was observed: (a)
encountering high injection pressure at the
injection wells and, (b) inconsistent sweep
efficiency or relatively low secondary oil
recove~ from some five spot patterns. As a
result, attempts have been made to address
these problems, and provide possible
explanations for their c~ccurrence. Granny Creek
is being operated by two separate companies,
One is developing the notihern part of the field
while the other operates the southern part. The
aforementioned problems (namely, high
injection pressure and low secondary
production) has been observed and reported by
both companies,
In this paper, two adjacent five spot
patterns have been chosen for study. These
patterns are located in the southern part of the
Granny Creek and have comparable pore
I
430
volumes. The behavior of these two patterns
are typical of the entire field. These two
patterns involve six injection wells and two
production wells. The injection wells in this
study are referred to as 1-1, 1-2, .... I-6 and the
production wells are referred to as P1 and P2,
co~esponding to the first and second patterns.
Injection wells 1-1,1-2,1-4, and I-5 belong to the
first pattern while injection wells 1-2,1-3,1-5, and
I-6 are part of the second pattern. Figure 3 is a
schematic diagram of these two adjacent five
spots,
SOURCES OF DATA
Geophysical well logs are available from
many wells in Granny Creek. More than 20
wells were cored during the course of primary
production and core analysis data are available
(the injection and production wells of the two
adjacent five spots that are being studied here
are not among the cored wells, although four of
the cored wells are quite close to the wells
under investigation). Most of the data, such as
porosity and formation thickness, have been
derived from well logs while permeability data
was measured from cores. Using conventional
geostatistical methods, these data were
extrapolated and mapped to the entire field.
Fluid properties (both oil and water) and relative
permeability data were obtained from the
operating companies. These companies also
provided the injection and production rates as
well as injection pressure data. For most of the
southern part of the field, !!w detailed primary
production data were not available in a form
that could be used for modeling and simulation
studies.
SPE26937 MOHAGiiEGH, S., AMERI, S., AMINIAN, K., ANO CHATTERJEE, U. 3
INJECTION PRESSURE
Figure 4 shows the injection pressure
data in the six injection wells in the two
adjacent five spot patterns that are being
studied. Itshould benoted thatwhilefive outof
the six injection wells have pressures in the
same order of magnitude, well I-4
demonstrates a much lower pressure. The
pressure in I-4 is almost half as much as the
other five injection wells. It must be also noted
that given the reservoir pressure, injection rate,
formation thickness, well completion information
(mostly open hole), formation permeability,
viscosity and compressibility of the injecting
fluid (water), a theoretical (approximate)
injection pressure was calculated. This value
was found to be less than half of what is
obsewed in the field.
During the course of the simulation,
although injection and production rates were
matched, the injection pressure that was
calculated by the simulator was again much
less than what was repoded from the field.
Since flow of fluids in porous media is
governed by the permeability of the formations,
once rate and pressure gradient were adjusted
(matched with the field data), the integrity of
permeability values became questionable. The
values that were used in the simulation study
were those measured from the core. Several
core samples from the field were obtained and
were independently measured in the labs.
These samples were taken during the primaty
phase of production and therefore were not
affected by injected water. A detailed sampling
of cores and their analysis revealed that the
values of permeability used in the simulation
study were quite reasonable,
The next step was the analysis of two
separate fall-off tests that were performed on
two wells in the southern pad of the field.
Figure 5 shows the location of these two wells.
Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the graphical
representation of these two tests. These wells
were stimulated during the injection process.
The result of the analysis showed a negative
skin which is explained by the stimulation
process. The interesting finding from both fall-
off tests was that the calculated permeabilities
were at least one order of magnitude less than
those measured from the cores. Consequently,
two points needs to be addressed. First, the
calculated permeability from these tests
represent an average values for the radius of
investigation of the test which was determined
to be about 300-400 feel. Thus, th ~
permeability at the vicinity of the wellbore is
lower than the calculation revea%. However,
the permeability of areas farther away from the
wellbore are higher. Second point is that it may
be questionable to compare the calculated
permeability values for these wells to measured
permeabilities of cores from other wells. The
magnitude of the permeability in different
locations in the field reveals that , although the
permeability changes from place to place, it
ranges between 5 to 14 md.
The permeabilities calculated frwv fall-off
tests were about 0.3 to 0.4 md. Since the cores
were taken prior to the water injection, the
conclusion is that introduction of water into the
system is causing the damage or permeability
reduction. To further test this theory, the
permeabilities of the blocks around the injection
wells were reduced and simulation was earned
out. The results sh~wed that by modeling a
localized low permeability area around the
inje~lion wells, the injection pressures observed
I
in the field could be simulated.
431
.
4 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A WATERFLOOD PROJECT IN SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA SPE26937
SWEEP EFFICIENCY
A puzzling probiem that appeared during
the waterflooding process, was the
inconsistency of sweep in adjacent patterns.
The two adjacent patterns that have been used
in this study are examples that typifies such
inconsistencies in the field. These two patterns
have similar injection rate to pore volume ratios.
There is no reason to believe that one part of
the reservoir is depleted to a higher degree
during the primary production. Figure 8
illustrates the reported oil production in these
patterns vlhile Figure 9 shows the reported
water production. The inconsistency of the oil
and water production in these two patterns is
quite notable.
It has been a well known fact that Big
lnjun sandstone is a highly heterogeneous
formation. Geological studies112have indicated
that this formation as well as its adjacent
horizons are fractured and/or contain many
faults. SRismic studies have shown the
existence of such faults and fractures. Another
possibility is that, since the injection pressures
are so high, the formation may have been
fractured during the injection process, Mhough
the operators strongly disagree with this theory.
Looking at the injection pressure behavior, one
might conclude that, the pressure data does not
show typical behavior of a damaged/fractured
well (unless the formation damage took place
early during the injection process), since the
injection pressure bu!lds up and remains steady
at a high level. This supports the operators
view regarding the fracture initiation during the
injection process. It could be concluded that
some fractures might be present in the field,
The irnpor%nt task was to see if the existence
of a fracture, whether the fracture(s) have been
generated during the injection process or are
native to the formation, could explain the
behavior of these five snot patterns.
The results of tracer tests performed by
both operators further proved that some
communication exists between different wells.
In addition the seismic interpretation suggested
that a fracture could possibly exist in that are.
Having this information, an obvious fact that
was being overlooked became more visible.
This was the pressure data of the injection wells
(Figure 4), Looking at this graph, it is obvious
that well I-4 has the lowest injection pressure.
Therefore, it is most probable that, if a fracture
exists between production well P2 and one
injection well, it must be 1-4. This orientation
was much closer to the interpretation of seismic
data.
The next step was to decide whether the
fracture is actually in Big Injun or in another
formation, which is acting as a thief zone since
seismic data was unable to detect the exact
depth of the fracture.
Several simulation studies were
conducted and the final conclusion was that the
existence of the fracture in the Big Lime, which
is the adjacent horizon on the immediate above
of the Big Injun, is the most probable scenario,
The results of the simulation study in the fwrn
of a history matching is presented in Figures 10
and 11 for both five spot patterns. In this study
the Big Injun and the Big Lime formations are
modeled as four separate layers. The top-
most layer is the Big Lime while layers 2, 3,
and 4 are subdivisions of Big Injun, layers
A, B, and C respectively. Both injection and
production wells are completed as open
hales. The fracture runs from injection well I-4
to production well P2. The fracture exists only
in the Big Lime formation.
I
I
432
SPE26937 MOHAGHE13H, S., AMERI, S., AMINIAN, K., ANO CHA7TERJEE, U 5
In order to simulate the effect of the
fractures in the reservoir, the transmissibility
modi?cation method was used.3 This method
has been tested and verified for modeling
permeability interfaces in black oil reservoir
models.
the oil recove~ to decrease considerably. It
was also concluded that in this field the iso;ated
fractures are most probably located in the Big
Lime, which is above Big Injun sand, acting as
a thief zone,
REFERENCES
CONCLUSIONS
A waterflooding project in Granny Creek
field in Southern West Virginia was evaluated.
This recovery process has displayed some
unusual behavior. These behaviors were
mainly high injection pressures and inconsistent
oil recove~ from similar five spot patterns. It
was concluded from engineering calculations,
simulation studies, analysis of injection fall-off
test data, and Iaboratoty measurement of the
cores that injection of water has adversely
affected the permeability of the fcrmation. This
may have caused the hydri%.dicfracturing during
the injection process. It was also concluded
that the inconsistency of secondary oil recove~
is a function of isolated fractures that may be
present.
These permeability interfaces, when
oriented parallel to the streamlines can cause
a
1. Donaldson, A,, et al.: Measuring and
Predicting Reservoir Heterogeneity in Complex
Deposystems,Annual Repod, DOE/BC/14657-
7, Aug. 1992.
2. Donaldson, A., et al.: Measuring and
Predicting Resewoir Heterogeneity in Complex
Deposystems, Anrwal Report, DOE/BC/14657-
7, Aug. 1993.
3. Nlohaghegh, S., Aminian, K., Ameri, S.,
and Chatterjee, U.: A New Approach for
Modelling and Simulation of Hydrocarbon
Resemoirs Containing Isolated Channels and
Barriers, paper No. 203-052, The International
Association of Science and Technology for
Development (IASTED), international
Conference on Applied Modelling and
Simulation, July 21-23, 1993, Vancouver,
Canada,
a,
.
1 0! .. %,.. .,. I
,,,: :T .,,: .,,;,
ZONAL EN VIRONAfENT LJTIIOFX CIE
Figura 1. Granny Creek field in southern West Virginia,
Figu~ 2. Geological subdivisionsof Big Injun formation,
I
WI
A 1.1 + M .*- 1.3 + I-4 . . . . 1.s 14
M
I-5
1-6
800. Y
0 500 iooo 1500 2000
Fgure 3. Two five spot waterflood patt..ms being studied,
2500
17me (days)
I
sPQ6937
2000
!.* -& 1
1-2
.-
1 -1
a I
- II If
/
\
\
I
I
Nor!hernPort
\
\
I ~,y,,,,,, : 1
I
o
I
1
1
Figure 5. Location of two wells with injection fall-off test data.
Figure 4. Injection pressure data for the two five spot patterns.
well # 2055
2000
u T
9&e=33 1.6
~~ P
.,
. .
,.
~ , ~oo . :,,
E!E!=i
g
i 100 0 @ia ::. ~
I .S=.-4,2 .
I
. . . . . . . .:.
I
500
10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0
h++
Figure 6. Fall-off test data for well # 2055.
WC1l # 21975
s =-5.5
\
\
. 10 10 @ 10 I@ 10
*
Figure 7. Fall-off test data for well # 21975.
434
sPE26937
2.27x104[
1 1 1 1
M
-[
0 5- Spol P2
x 5 - spot PI
~
1,82X104
2
c
o
.-
1 1.36x104 ./1
e
o
II
, *OXIO1*
30 517 1004 1490 1977 2464
Time (days)
2.22xlo4
~
~ 1.78x104 -
c
~
YJ
: 1,33X104 -
<
g
g 8.90X103 -
al
:
0
i
E 4.45X103 -
3
o
30 517 1004 1490 1977 2464
Time (days)
Figure 8. Secondary oil productionfrom two adjacent patterns. Figure 9. Seconda~ water productionfrom two adjacent pattern:
2.27x104[
1 I 1 1
a
4
~ 1.82X1O
~
=
> 1.36x104 -
:
:
>
~
i!
~
:
: 4.54X103 -
0
1 501 1001 1500 2000 2500
Time (days)
Figure10. Simulation match for oil and water production for
five spot pattern #1, including the Lsolatednatural fracture.
2.22X104
t
I,78x104
t
~ Simulated water
~
2
Fkld Dst- (oil)
Pield Dais (water) ,
n
t
~ 8.90x10J
.=
t
E
: 4.45X103
k 4!2
\
\
.Gi#i
OL
1 475 949 1422 1896 2370
Time (days)
Figure 11, Simulation match for oil and water production for
five spot pattern #2, including the isolated natural fracture,
I 435