Sie sind auf Seite 1von 23

SPE-187468-MS

Data-Driven Optimization of Injection/Production in Waterflood Operations

Cenk Temizel, Area Energy; Mehdi Nabizadeh and Nematollah Kadkhodaei, International Petro Asmari Company;
Rahul Ranjith, Anuj Suhag, and Karthik Balaji, University of Southern California; Diyar Dhannoon, Texas A&M
University

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Intelligent Oil and Gas Symposium held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9-10 May 2017.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Decision making in waterflooding operations is a crucial process in petroleum oilfield activities where
numerous attributes and uncertainties exist in the complete process. This study investigates the reservoir
management of waterfloods in terms of injection/production practices. A well-organized historical database
that also collects real-time data is especially important in utilization of data-driven methods in the process of
determination of optimum injection/production practices for waterfloods that will result in better recovery
and sweep, which is illustrated in this paper.
Statistics is a strong tool to turn information or data into knowledge when used with care and physical
understanding of the cause-effect relation between attributes and the outcome. Unfortunately, historical
data and learnings from the past cannot be used in an efficient way in oilfield decisions due to the lack of
systematically organized historical data where there is a huge potential of turning terrabytes of data into
knowledge and understanding for improved decisions and results. Historical injection and production data
at pattern level is utilized to determine the optimum injection levels in light of significant factors that affect
the success of a waterflooding displacement process with commercial data analysis tools.
Analysis of injection/production data at associated injectors and producers reveals the optimum injection
levels depending on the significant factors including but not limited to subsurface conformance, number and
location of producers, vintage of wells, completion practices and injection history. The optimum injection
levels change depending on the changing variables that affect the displacement and injection processes,
thus, a real-time data flow from producers and injectors is required to capture and maintain the optimum
operating levels.
The significance of each parameter in this process is obtained in a dynamic manner with real-time feed
of field data and efficiently used to determine the optimum levels of injection at a specified time. Change
of important factors in the process in time is also important by means of adding another dimension on the
relative significance of parameters in the process, thereby shedding light on future decisions.

Introduction
The first step in any engineering design is cost effectiveness. Unless an application is cost effective and
economically favorable, designing levels does not kick in. Any oil reservoir should meet some minimum
2 SPE-187468-MS

technical and economic criteria to be a candidate for a waterflooding technique for oil recovery. During oil
recovery, water flooding is a method that is crucial in maintaining the pressure through oil reservoirs. As
oil is drawn from any reservoir, the pressure of the wells drop. To compensate for this pressure diminution,
water or any other commercially, physically and chemically compatible substance is to be pumped into the
well. However, the original reservoir water composition is expected to be significantly dissimilar from the
composition of accessible water for injection. This alteration in water form results in new chemical reactions
mostly due to the availability of various chemical compositions in them.

Figure 1The cross-section is illustrating how carbon dioxide and water can
be used to flush residual oil from a subsurface rock formation between wells.

Waterflood Injector and Producer Pattern Designs


To maximize ultimate oil recovery and increase economic return from water flooding, engineers seek for
the best designing pattern and optimum spacing for both injection and production wells. Design and spacing
based decisions make a great impact on the final economic gain and ultimate oil recovery. Unlike onshore oil
fields, the maximum possible quantity of wells in offshore fields is very limited and pattern based decision
is not necessary. Figure 2 shows some pattern designs for injection and production wells. These designs
are best applied in onshore oil recovery based on size of the reservoir, geological information available and
many other factors.
SPE-187468-MS 3

Figure 2Different injection and producer pattern designs to maximize oil recovery

Fractional Flow Theory


The origins of fractional flow theory date back to when Buckley-Leverett formulated his famous equation
in fluid dynamics for two-phase flow. The theory is based on the fact that oil needs an extra effort to be
expelled from its residing side. As quoted from Buckley "Crude oil has no inherent ability to expel itself
from the pores of the reservoir rocks in which it is found; rather, it must be forcibly ejected or displaced by
the accumulation of other fluids." Fractional flow theory is widely used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
that includes polymer flooding, carbonated water flooding, hot water flooding and other types of flooding.
In applications of fractional flow theory, one should make sure to add into account the partial miscibility of
carbon dioxide (CO2) in crude oil. With the presence of water, a three-phase flow is to be considered while
dealing with fractional flow theory. It is also important to note that crude oil is made of many components.
Also, miscibility is a function of the composition of crude oil and external variables such as temperature
and pressure. The variables described are critical yet difficult to simulate in fractional flow theory.

Composition of Injected Water


Modern wells pump both CO2 and water. The inserted CO2 encourages stuck oil to pass toward the
production well due to rise in miscibility of oil in it. Regarding the chemistry of injected water, there are
many types of waters that can be injected depending on the location of the oil reservoir and available sources
and resources. The chemical composition of the water mostly is based on the geographic place where it is
collected. Regarding off-shore oil reservoirs for oil recovery they only have access to sea water with very
well-defined compositions. Different factors such as time, depth and temperature are factors that influence
the composition of sea water drawn. The dependence of sea water composition on the time in which it was
collected, the depth at which the water was collected and the temperature at the time of collection is well
defined, and there is a significant detailed information regarding this matter by WORLD OCEAN ATLAS.
The salinity of ocean water based on season and depth of the water could be found from a public resource
by the National Centers for Environmental Information. Figure 3 5 demonstrates sea salinity based on
water depth. Countries located closer to the equator have to deal with a higher salt concentration in offshore
oil recovery compared to those closer to poles. This salinity level difference is less when water is collected
4 SPE-187468-MS

deeper. This difference is extremely smaller at 500 m depth and hardly noticeable at 5000m depth. It is
important to mention that salinity difference though measurable, is less that 10% even at the surface. The
scale for salinity measurement is called practical salinity scale (PSS), which is a measure of conductivity
of water at a given temperature. The chemistry of seawater as measured by Karl in part per million (ppm)
are shown in Table 1.

Table 1Major elements in sea water

Major components -ppm

Hydrogen H2O 110,000

Oxygen H2O 883,000

Sodium NaCl 10,800

Chlorine NaCl 19,400

Magnesium Mg 1,290

Sulfur S 904

Potassium K 392

Calcium Ca 411

Bromine Br 67.3

Boron B 4.45

Carbon C 28.0

Nitrogen ion 15.5

Fluorine F 13

Silicon Si 2.9

Figure 3Sea salinity at water surface


SPE-187468-MS 5

Figure 4Sea salinity at 500m depth

Figure 5Sea salinity at 5000m depth

Irrespective of the source of inserted water, treatment is a necessity. The type of injected water governs the
essential treatment, to diminish the effect of suspended matter, microbiological fouling and corrosiveness
of water scale deposition.
6 SPE-187468-MS

Figure 6Pressure changes which could produce scale at different locations during water injection

Obtaining water resource is a grave concern for oil and gas companies. Transporting water to the
production site, separation, treatment and then disposal are costs in addition to scaling corrosion and
emulation value.

Scale formations

Figure 7Scale formation in different pipes

Incompatibility of the formation water and injected water results in scale formation inside pipes. Scales are
a source of damage for both production and injection wells due to their contributions to equipment wear,
corrosion and flow restrictions. This damage has a great impact on oil production rates. Scales form from
supersaturation of the minerals dissolved in water if some minerals present in the solution are higher than
the determined solubility of those minerals at the given condition (temperature, pressure, and pH). Scales
form due to precipitation of the excessive amount of salts in the water. In conclusion, scales are formed due
SPE-187468-MS 7

to the mixing of two incompatible water types, yet not the only reason. Scales can typically form as the
water conditions change such as the temperature or pressure change of water.

Reservoir Management and Waterflood Key Performance Indicators


With basic production and injection rates, base case is run on a reservoir simulator to plot/map reservoir
pressure and saturation profiles. The base case will be used to evaluate the WF support in the reservoir
and suggest infill wells drilling strategies. Using software interfaces, we can visualize key performance
indicators of waterflooding operation- voidage replacement ratio, sweep efficiency, nominal pressure. To
perform optimization, Adaptive Simulated Annealing (ASA) method is recommended as it is very well
suited for highly non- linear problems. The main objective of this optimization problem is to maximize
recovery and production rates by adding soft constraints (Waterflood key performance indicators) and
hard constraints (maximum injection and production rates). An optimizer is attached with a 3D reservoir
simulation model and decision variables that can be changed are selected. The optimizer will change the
decision variables, by respecting the constraints, till the objective function is satisfied.

Figure 8Flow Chart for Optimization of KPIs in Waterflood Operation Khan et al 2013

Scenario 1

Minimum and maximum injection rates are selected.

Short term VRR target per pattern is selected

Bottom hole pressure constrained well by well using bubble point pressure.

Nominal pressure - current reservoir pressure divided by reservoir pressure

Production rates are fixed to maximum allowable per well.

Scenario 2:
8 SPE-187468-MS

All the same constraints as scenario 1 are valid.

Production rates can vary from 0 to maximum allowable production rates.

Additionally, as studied by Temizel et al (2016), using the production and injection data for the field
it is possible to use data mining operations for obtaining various trends in the sequences. By integrating
this process with Artificial Neural Networks and (or) genetic algorithms, we can change key performance
indicators (KPI) for optimizing the procedure. A full-physics model is derived regards to this optimizing
parameter. By integrating the geological model on simulation software to visualize and characterize the
reservoir, and by running soft constraints on the KPI, optimization is possible. First, we integrate both the
full physics model and the geological model and evaluate the changes with time in the KPI and other the
optimizing parameter. Once this result is obtained we integrate the simulation results with an optimization
software to understand the significance (weighted) of each parameter with respect to the objective function
thus understanding how each parameter would affect the eventual profitability of the wells.

Data-Driven Modeling
With constant surveilliance and improvement of technology, the amount of data being generated from
subsurface reservoirs as well as production facilities is on a rise. Major players are adopting waterflood
optimization using data-driven models.
There are multiple methodologies involved in the generation of these data-driven models, which mainly
include - data gathering, data selection, identification of key attributes, history matching and forecasting.
Data gathering can vary from simple frequent gathering of data to storage of data, reporting, documentation
and integration. It includes the use of smart well technology such as ICVs and regular rate recoding.
Acquisition of data includes data such as well trajectories, well interventions, production/injection data, co-
ordinated maps, well logs & petrophysical models and geological reservoir models. Storage of this data
includes various methods - SQL server integration, volume analysis, IAM, pumping & drilling databases.
The next step in the process involves generation of reports and well status.
Analysis of data is the most integral part of data-driven modeling, as the accuracy of identification
of trends and attributes determines its accuracy. Various methodologies are used in data-driven models
including artificial neural networks, fuzzy logic and capacitance-resistance models. We will look into these
methods in details in the next section.
Attributes are the building blocks of data which should be deliberated on and be chosen carefully as they
will form the instances that will characterize the result conceptually, depending on the nature of the result.
Instances are formed of different combinations of attributes, which are chosen from pre-processed data sets
of the initial data from the field to make informed decisions. The quantity (whole numbers or fractions)
or specification (labels or co-ordinates) is the measurement/identity of the instance. Attribute selection is
wholly dependent on the nature of the result, and can vary from case to case and is subject to the pre-
processed data. The attributes which come close to a more wholesome contribution is given preference over
other attributes of the dataset. Data cleaning and dimensionality reduction can be a solution to handle sparse
data if it were the case to represent the instance. Data cleaning is also a very important step to take care of
missing or faulty data that may be a part of the pre-processed data in order to get the most accurate result.
In case of large amounts of attributes, dimensionality reduction algorithms help to represent the attribute
as part of the instance for getting accurate results. If the data is not handled well, faulty attribute signatures
could result in inaccurate results hindering machine learning predictive algorithms. Decisions are based on
the descriptive, predictive outcome and prescriptive attributes of the data.
SPE-187468-MS 9

Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)


ANN has been used mainly in the oil & gas industry for attribute selection and optimization. It is named
artificial neural networks because of its skeletal structure. Input attributes are chosen to optimize the
objective function with multiple hidden layers. The interaction between different layers can have multiple
inputs or outputs. The data selection attribute and generation of missing data needs to be done prior to the
process. ANNs can be used to generate pseudo logs and to generated optimized recovery processes.

Figure 9ANN Structure

Capacitance-Resistance Models (CRM)


CRM is a data-driven input-output method that uses non-linear regression on historical data to calculate
connectivity between the injector and producer. Generally, only rate data and bottom hole pressure data are
required for history matching and to obtain parameters of the model. CRM studies by Sayarpour (2009)
provide an excellent fit to production rates. While at the same time, history matching process between
models can reveal important trends and parameters. Due to this, many optimization softwares in recent years
have been using CRM models of different capacities to optimize waterfloods, history matching ability as
well as to predict future trends.
Albertoni and Lake (2002) came up with this model to identify communication patterns. Yousf (2006)
mathematically developed a model for CRM using material balance and time constant parameters.
Sayarpour (2008) obtained semi-analytical solutions of the governing differential equations for different
control volumes. Weber (2009) can up with a method to pre-process data and reduce parameter requirements
for CRM to make it more "user-friendly". CRM has been used for various functionalities throughout the
oil & gas spectrum.
A model of one injector and producer each to forecast total oil and water production in a waterflood
operation is shown by Sayarpour (2009). The total production rate, qt(t) and oil production rate qo(t) are
evaluated as a function of time considering all the injection rates from 1st to the kth time interval, I*(tk) after
n intervals as:

Where,
10 SPE-187468-MS

I(tk) is the effective injection at kth time from injector to producer in control volume and ew is the aquifer
influx. Oil production rate is obtained from the Buckley leverett fraction flow model by,

Where, M is the mobility ratio. Average saturation can be defined from material balance as,

The effective water saturation and water production data are used to get standardized saturation values.
The process can be calculated intrinsically and extrinsically. Runs can be randomized using CFD estimation
of key parameter ranges and then used to input them to generate different runs. By crossplots of the various
output parameters, the top 10% (according to user convenience) of data can be selected by cross-examining
and matching with field generated data. From these predictions, it possible to optimize the process. This
method can also be used for data forecasting.
Runo et al. (2015) demonstrated the use of CRM in a field case in the Salym gas field in Russia.
They developed a data gathering and processing unit for active monitoring of mature waterfloods in the
reservoir and developed criteria for decision making in terms of well selection, KPI selection and so on.
Jahangiri (2014) also generated a data-driven method for improving waterflood in the North Sea using
CRM methodology and IAM. Similarly, Fraguiro (2017) developed a multilayer waterflood optimization
tool based on data driven modeling using CRM technology. Another famous tool in data-driven waterflood
optimization is the interwell numerical simulation model (INSIM) that can be be used for calculation of
approximate performance of waterflood for the control volume. The method has been shown by C. Carpenter
(2016).

Important factors in Waterflood Efficiency - Vertical, Areal Conformance and


Magnitude of Injection
We illustrate each of the components below - vertical, areal conformance and magnitude of injection. CRM
is a proven data-driven approach successfully applied in waterflood operations, which requires expertise
and significant amount of work to utilize. However, it provides not only forecasts with the model built but
also the interwell connectivity information for the wells. It becomes much more complicated to carry this
out, as the number of wells increase and influences from different producers and injectors are present. It
may not be possible for every asset to build and operate CRM models as it is a relatively new area that
requires expertise, a certain dedication of time in establishing a model and data organization and storage.
In this study, we use a pseudo-CRM approach in the sense that information about interwell connectivity is
aimed to be obtained, but without any objective of having forecasts and building any models.

Figure 10Key components

Overall recovery should be maximized through maximizing each component in the recovery process.
SPE-187468-MS 11

Vertical Conformance
Areal conformance and vertical injection conformance are important factors in the waterflood displacement
process. Figures 10 14 illustrate the differences that a bad and a good vertical injection conformance may
result in.

Figure 11Difference between good injection profile vs bad injection profile in final
saturation distribution for the reservoir simulation model - cross sectional view

Figure 12Difference between good injection profile vs bad injection profile


in final saturation distribution for the reservoir simulation model - 3D view
12 SPE-187468-MS

Figure 13Injector subsurface conformance and areal conformance are important parameters of successful recovery

Figure 14Evenly distributed injection among the producers leads to better ultimate
recovery in reservoirs with homogeneous rock properties and saturation distribution
SPE-187468-MS 13

Figure 15Workflow: Areal conformance through inter-well connectivity provides better adjustment of injection rates

Benefits of understanding Areal Injection Conformance

Adjust rates accordingly

Prevent over injecting into a single well (that may cause high WCUT, flowing wells, etc.)

Better knowledge of how to take action when high GROSS/WCUT wells exist

Tap more oil in patterns where higher injection rates are possible

Better pattern (and thus reservoir management) with better knowledge of inter-well connectivity

Better future well placement with previous knowledge of inter-well connectivity

Better sweep of unswept areas = less oil left behind

Less high WCUT/flowing wells, better use of injected water

Prevention of linkups in future packages to a certain extent


14 SPE-187468-MS

Simple Illustration of the Method - Interwell Connectivity

Figure 16Method illustration

This method works on creating pulses or disturbances on the injectors either by decreasing or increasing
the injection rates and observing the responses on the producers in the same pattern by looking at their run
time pump capacities or gross rates. There might be some complications in uses of these so the engineers
need to be careful in using this method.

Figure 17Runtime pump capacity response of well 1 to the injection change


SPE-187468-MS 15

Figure 18Runtime pump capacity response of well 2 to the injection change

Figure 19Runtime pump capacity response of well 3 to the injection change


16 SPE-187468-MS

Figure 20Runtime pump capacity response of well 4 to the injection change

Figure 21runtime pump capacity response of well 5 to the injection change


SPE-187468-MS 17

Figure 22Runtime pump capacity response of well 6 to the injection change

Figure 23Runtime pump capacity response of well 7 to the injection change

Disturbances on injectors may not be measured right away at the producers due to the insufficient
frequency of well tests or runtime pump capacities not reflecting the true responses due to pump or well
conditions. Also, the method is applied such that the disturbance is done one-pattern-at-a-time so that the
signals do not overlap. This can be automated so that the disturbances at patterns at distant locations can
be carried out and then the analysis at pattern-level can be done and the injector and producer connectivity
can be understood. The magnitude and response time can change at producers depending on the degree of
connectivity between the injector and the producers. The scope of this study is to illustrate the methodology
rather than to investigate the details of a specific pattern. The data and information provided is synthetic
and for the sole purpose of illustration, no field data is utilized.

Steps

Obtain injector-producer communication (inter-well connectivity) information using the injection


responses at producers
Better reservoir management through surveillance via usage of available data not yet utilized
18 SPE-187468-MS

Areal injection conformance to be understood using inter-well (injector-producer) connectivities


in patterns.
Increased oil recovery and waterflood efficiency at no extra significant cost

Magnitude of Injection
This is another important factor that needs to be optimized. It is not easy to find the appropriate amount
of injection on pattern level. However, robust use of historical and real-time data can lead to efficient
injection management in the patterns. It is known that injecting more than the matrix intake rate along with
the heterogeneity and mobility factors can lead to premature breakthrhough and/or recycling of water. To
minimize or prevent these it is important to have an understanding of how the producer is performing real-
time and how much injection from the injectors can the producers handle or produce efficiently without
recycling. Y-function introduced by Yang (2012) is one of these methods that can be utilized to understand
if the producer is performing normally without any recycle.

Steamflood Oil Banking and Comparison with Waterflood

Figure 24Schematic Diagram for Steamflod and Waterflood Profiles (Yang, 2012)

Details of the Y-function methodology is beyond the scope of this paper and can be further read in the
references below. Brief explanation for the method is provided below and some examples are provided to
illustrate the method. The real-time data coming from the field can be effectively fed to the Y-function
to increase or decrease the injection rates at the pattern levels to prevent or minimize the recycling, thus,
increasing the efficiency of waterfloods.
Fig 25. shows the way Y-function works. It shows the waterflood performance and indicates if the well is
experiencing premature breakthrough, primary production or whether the well is having an expected normal
waterflood performance or not. This is important in understanding the level and amount of waterflood
support the producer is receiving and the status of it. Premature breakthrough happens when the injection
SPE-187468-MS 19

rates are more than required. As reservoirs have high heterogeneity with channels and thief zones, it is hard
to know and optimize the injection levels in the beginning of the waterflood even though engineers have a
feeling of the right, or required amount of injection. Y-function is very useful in identifying the status of
the producer in order to understand the condition of the producer and thus helps the reservoir engineers to
adjust the injection and/or fix other mechanical or near-wellbore factors that may be negatively affecting
the production.

Figure 25Oil banking indicated by Y-function (Yang, 2012)

Fig. 26 illustrates a premature breakthrough case as understood from the legend in Fig 25. Injector that
supports this producer can be adjusted to reduce injection to have a better waterflood performance as it
seems that the current injection levels are yielding some premature breakthrough.

Figure 26Y-function Plot: Premature water breakthrough


20 SPE-187468-MS

Fig 27. Also illustrates a case of premature breakhtough where injection on the injector side should be
adjusted and the curve here should be observed until oil cut improves.

Figure 27Y-function Plot: Premature water breakthrough

Fig 28. illustrates a case of a successful waterflood where the producer is responding the water injection
in an efficient way after primary production. The injection can be kept at this level for this producer.

Figure 28Y-function Plot: Normal waterflood performance


SPE-187468-MS 21

Results and Recommendations


We have investigated different significant control parameters that impact the success of a waterflood
displacement process: Vertical, Areal Conformance and Magnitude of Injection.
Vertical conformance is monitored by different methods such as fiber optics or injection profile surveys.
The injection levels should be adjusted according to the status of the injection profile as a bad injection
profile well and a good injection profile well should not be injecting the same level of water which may
result in several problems at the producers including flowing wells, pressurization of certain intervals, and
premature breakthrough and high grosses with high water cut levels.
Areal conformance is often ignored in surveillance activities compared to vertical conformance.
However, areal conformance is also important as an injector in a pattern is expected to support all the
producers in the pattern in a more evn way. If areal conformance is not well established and not even,
some producers will be oversupported and others will be undersupported, resulting in high watercuts and
premature breakthroughs or low gross producers that are not supported sufficiently. The elevl of interwell
connectivity in a pattern can be identified by different ways including CRM methods. We offered a simpler
way by using pulse injections at distant patterns to understand the interwell connectivity, we do not aim to
replace a well-established methodology of CRM but want to introduce a simpler way when CRM cannot
be apllied due to lack of resources. The interwell connectivities may not be captured as exactly as it is done
in CRM but it gives a relative measure of injector-producer relationships trhough disturbances/pulses at the
injectors and their impact/signal on the producers.
Magnitude or rate of injection is another important factor. Y-function that was introduced by Yang offers
a robust understanding of how well a producer is responding a waterflood. We have not covered the method
in detail as it is beyond the scope of the paper but more details can be obtained using thre relevant references.
When reservoir management is performed taking into account and with a better understanding of
these factors and adjustments are done properly, recovery should be improved through a more efficient
waterflooding process.

Acknowledgement
Authors thank the University of Southern California, Aera Energy (a Shell-ExxonMobil JV), International
Petro Asmari Company (IPAC) and VaalbaraSoft.

References
1. Yang, Z.M.: "A New Diagnostic Analysis Method for Waterflood Performance," SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering (April, 2009) 341351.
2. Yang, Z.M., "Analysis of Production Decline in Waterflood Reservoirs," SPE 124613 (2009a).
3. Yang, Z.M.: "Production Performance Diagnostics Using Field Production Data and Analytical
Models: Method and Case Study for the Hydraulically Fractured South Belridge Diatomite," SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering (Dec, 2012) 712724.
4. Yang, Z.M., and Urdaneta, A.: "A Practical Approach to History Matching Premature Water
Breakthrough in Waterflood Reservoir Simulation: Method and Case Studies in South Belridge
Diatomite Waterflood," SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering (2016).
5. Yang, Z.M.: "Clarifying and Improving the Application of Waterflood Analytical Methods in X-
plot Conditions - from Empirical Approach to Analytical Approach,"
6. Merdhah, M. and A. Badr, The study of scale formation in oil reservoir during water injection at
high-barium and high-salinity formation water. 2008, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of
Chemical and Natural Resources Engineering.
22 SPE-187468-MS

7. Olajire, A.A., A review of oilfield scale management technology for oil and gas production.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2015. 135: p. 723737.
8. Morrow, N. and J. Buckley, Improved Oil Recovery by Low-Salinity Waterflooding.
9. Technologies, T. norganic scale formation, prediction and inhibition continues to be a Tomson
Technologies focus area. 2014 [cited 2016 10/29].
10. labratory, n.e.t., Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery. 2010 p. 5.
11. Rose, S.C., J.F. Buckwalter, and R.J. Woodhall, The design engineering aspects of waterflooding.
Stephen C. Rose, John F. Buckwalter, Robert J. Woodhall. Monograph / SPE Henry L. Doherty
series: vol. 11. 1989: Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1989.
12. Buckley, S.E. and M.C. Leverett, Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands.
13. Kleppe, P.J., Reservoir Recovery Techniques. 2016.
14. Antonov, J., et al., World Ocean Atlas 2009, vol. 2, Salinity, edited by S. Levitus, 184 pp. US
Gov. Print. Off., Washington, DC, 2010.
15. Turekian, K.K., Oceans. [by] Karl K. Turekian. Foundations of earth science series. 1968:
Englewood, Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, [1968].
16. Nasr-El-Din, H.A., et al., Injection of Incompatible Water as a Means of Water Shut-Off. Society
of Petroleum Engineers.
17. Serkan Dursun, Kaan Duman, Tayfun Tuna; "A Workflow for Intelligent Data-Driven Analytics
Software Development in Oil and Gas Industry;" SPE-170859; SPE ATCE, Amsterdam October
2014
18. M. Sayarpour, C.S. Kabir, L.W. Lake, "Field Applications of Capacitance-Resistive Models in
Waterfloods" Published in SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering Journal, December 2009.
19. M. Sayarpour, C.S. Kabir, K. Sepehrnoori, L.W. Lake. "Probabilistic History Matching with the
Capacitance-Resistance Model in Waterfloods: A Precursor to Numerical Modeling." Presented
at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 24-28th April 2010. SPE
129604
20. C. Temizel, S. Aktas, H. Kirmaci, O. Susuz, Y. Zhu, K. Balaji, R. Ranjith, S. Tahir, F.
Aminzadeh, C. Yegin. "Turning Data into Knowledge: data-Driven Survelliance and
Optimization in Mature Field." Presented at SPE ATCE, Dubai, UAE. 26-28th September 2016.
SPE-181881-MS
21. F. Cao, H. Luo, L.W. Lake. "Development of Fully Coupled two-phase flow based capacitance
Resistance Model (CRM)." Presented at SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 12-16th April 2016. SPE-169485-MS.
22. A. Albertoni, L.W. Lake, "Inferring Connectivity only from well-rate fluctutaions in
waterfloods." Published in Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering Journal, 6(1):616. 2003.
23. A.A. Yousef, P.H. Gentil, J.L. Jensen, L.W. Lake. "A Capacitance Model to inder Interwell
connectivity from production and Injection rate Fluctuations." Published in SPE Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering, 9(5): 630646. 2006.
24. D.B. Weber, T.F. Edgar, L.W. Lake, L.S. Lasdon, S. Kawas, M. Sayarpour. "Improvements in
Capacitance-Resistive Modeling and Optimization of large scale reservoirs." Presented at SPE
WRM, San Jose, CA. 24-26th March 2009. SPE 121299.
25. H. Zhao, Z. Kang, X. Zhang, H. Sun, L. Cao, A.C. Reynolds. "INSIM: A data-driven Model for
History Matching and Prediction for waterflooding monitoring and management with a field
application." Presented at SPERSS, woodlands, TX. 23-25th February 2016. SPE 173213.
26. R. Mijnarends, A. Frolov, F. Grishko, S. Kryanev, E. Mikhaylenko, E. Nizamutdinov, O.
Plokhotnichenko, I. Surovets, E. Ulyanov, Y. Volokitin, A. Gladkov, M. Belyanushkina, A.
SPE-187468-MS 23

Lvov. "Advanced Data-Driven Performance Analysis for Mature Waterfloods." Presented at SPE
ATCE, Houston, TX. 28-30th September 2015. SPE-174872-MS.
27. H.R. Jahangiri, C. Adler, S. Shirzadi, R. Bailey, E. Ziegel, J. Chesher, M. White. "A data-driven
approach enhances Conventional Reservoir Surveillance Methods for Waterflood Performance
Management in the North Sea." Presented at SPE Intelligent Energy Conference & Exhibition,
Utrecht, Netherlands. 1-3rd April 2014. SPE-167849-MS.
28. M. Fragio, A. Lacivita, J. Valle, M>Marzano, M. Storti. "Integrating a data driven model into a
Multilayer Pattern Waterflood Simulator." Presented at SPE Latin America & Caribbean Mature
Fields Symposium, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. 15-16th March 2017. SPE-184908-MS.
29. Khan, H., Saputelli, L. A., Carvajal, G. A., Ranjan, P., Wang, F., & Knabe, S. P. (2013, September
16). Multi-Objectives Constrained Waterflood Optimization in Tight Carbonates. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/166051-MS
30. Schoeling, L. G., Barnett, G. B., Michnick, M. J., Walton, A. W., Green, D. W., & Willhite, G.
P. (1996, January 1). Development of an Improved Waterflood Optimization Program in the
Northeast Savonburg Waterflood. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/35367-MS
31. Spath, J., & McCants, S. (1997, January 1). Waterflood Optimization Using a Combined
Geostatistical - 3D Streamline Simulation Approach: A Field Example. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/38355-MS
32. Temizel, Cenk, et al. "Production Optimization through Voidage Replacement using Triggers for
Production Rate" Presented at SPE Latin America and Caribbean Heavy and Extra Heavy Oil
Conference, Lima, Peru, 2016. SPE 184131 MS.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen