You are on page 1of 23

E&P NOTES

AUTHORS
Ernest A. Mancini $ Center for Sedimentary Basin Studies and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Alabama, Box 870338, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487; emancini@wgs.geo.ua.edu Ernest A. Mancini is regional director of the Eastern Gulf Region of the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, director of the Center for Sedimentary Basin Studies, and professor in petroleum geology in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Alabama. His research focus is on reservoir characterization and modeling, petroleum systems, and the application of stratigraphic analysis to petroleum exploration. Thomas A. Blasingame $ Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843; t-blasingame@tamu.edu Tom Blasingame is an associate professor in the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M University. He holds B.S. and M.S. degrees and a Ph.D. from Texas A&M University in petroleum engineering. He is a distinguished member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and a member of the Society for Exploration Geophysicists and AAPG. Rosalind Archer $ Department of Engineering Science, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1020, New Zealand; r.archer@auckland.ac.nz Rosalind Archer holds a Ph.D. in petroleum engineering from Stanford University. Her research interests are in reservoir characterization, well testing, and reservoir simulation. She is currently a lecturer in the Department of Engineering Science at the University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. She is also an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M University. Brian J. Panetta $ Center for Sedimentary Basin Studies and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Alabama, Box 870338, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487; bpanetta@petromod.geo.ua.edu Brian Panetta is a research associate in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Alabama. He received a B.S. degree from the University of South Carolina, an M.S. degree from the University of Kentucky, and an M.S. degree and a Ph.D. from the University of Alabama. His research interests are in reservoir characterization and geologic modeling. Juan Carlos Llinas $ Center for Sedimentary Basin Studies and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Alabama, Box 870338, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487; llina001@bama.ua.edu Juan Carlos Llinas obtained his B.A degree from the National University of Colombia in 1995 and

Improving recovery from mature oil fields producing from carbonate reservoirs: Upper Jurassic Smackover Formation, Womack Hill field (eastern Gulf Coast, U.S.A.)
Ernest A. Mancini, Thomas A. Blasingame, Rosalind Archer, Brian J. Panetta, Juan Carlos Llinas, Charles D. Haynes, and D. Joe Benson

ABSTRACT Reservoir characterization, modeling, and simulation were undertaken to improve production from Womack Hill field (eastern Gulf Coast, United States). This field produces oil from Upper Jurassic Smackover carbonate shoal reservoirs. These reservoirs occur in vertically stacked, heterogeneous depositional and porosity cycles. The cycles consist of lime mudstone and wackestone at the base and ooid grainstone at the top. Porosity has been enhanced through dissolution and dolomitization. Porosity is chiefly interparticle, solutionenlarged interparticle, grain moldic, intercrystalline dolomite, and vuggy pores. Dolostone pore systems and flow units have the highest reservoir potential. Petroleum-trapping mechanisms include a fault trap (footwall uplift with closure to the south against a major west-southeast trending normal fault) in the western area, a footwall uplift trap associated with a possible southwest-northeast trending normal fault in the south-central area, and a salt-cored anticline with four-way dip closure in the eastern area. Potential barriers to flow are present as a result of petrophysical differences among and within the cycles, as well as the presence of normal faulting. Reservoir performance analysis and simulation indicate that the unitized western area has less than 1 MMSTB of oil remaining to be recovered, and that the eastern area has 2 3 MMSTB of oil to be recovered. A field-scale reservoir management strategy that

Copyright #2004. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. Manuscript received March 17, 2004; provisional acceptance May 26, 2004; revised manuscript received June 10, 2004; final acceptance June 21, 2004.

AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, no. 12 (December 2004), pp. 1629 1651

1629

his M.S. degree in 2003 from the University of Alabama, and he is currently working on his Ph.D. at the University of Alabama. He works in geologic modeling of oil fields with siliciclastic and carbonate reservoirs using well-log, core, and seismic data. Charles D. Haynes $ Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama, Box 870205, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487; chaynes@coe.eng.ua.edu Charles D. Haynes is a businessman and educator with degrees in mining and petroleum engineering. He was an independent petroleum producer before joining the faculty at the University of Alabama. He continues his professional practice through mineralsrelated research, consulting, and joint ownership of an independent oil-producing company. He serves on the State Board of Licensure for Engineers and Land Surveyors. D. Joe Benson $ Center for Sedimentary Basin Studies and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Alabama, Box 870338, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487; dbenson@as.ua.edu Joe Benson is a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences and senior associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Alabama. His research interests lie in carbonate sedimentology and sedimentary petrology. He received a B.A. degree from the College of Wooster and an M.S. degree and a Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati.

includes the drilling of infill wells in the eastern area of the field and perforating existing wells in stratigraphically higher porosity zones in the unitized western area is recommended for sustaining production from the Womack Hill field.

INTRODUCTION Womack Hill field, southwest Alabama, was discovered in 1970. The petroleum trap was originally interpreted as a salt pillow anticline associated with the Pickens-Gilbertown-West Bend fault system (McKee, 1990). With increasing oil production rates, the reservoir pressure declined rapidly on the west end of the field. Because of this decline in reservoir pressure in the western area of the reservoir, this portion of the field was unitized in 1975, and a freshand salt-water injection program for pressure maintenance was initiated. Ultimate oil recovery was estimated to be 17.1 MMSTB of oil from the unitized western area where the dominant reservoir drive mechanism is a combination of solution gas and water drive. From mathematical computer modeling associated with unitization, ultimate primary oil recovery from Womack Hill field was estimated at 25.2 MMSTB of oil or 29% of the original oil in place (87 MMSTB of oil). The estimated oil recovery from secondary operations was 40% or 34.8 MMSTB of oil from the field. As a result of the modeling, it was concluded that a fluid-flow barrier was present and was located approximately along the production unit lease line between wells 2130B and 1804 (Figure 1). It was determined that the eastern area of the field was performing under the influence of a substantial water drive, and secondary recovery in this area was not justified at this time. Thirty-seven wells have been drilled in the field area. Overall, the Womack Hill field has produced 31.2 MMSTB of oil, 15.4 bscf (billion standard cubic feet) of gas, and 51.7 MMSTB of water from the Upper Jurassic Smackover Formation from 27 wells. The unitized western area of Womack Hill field has produced 17.0 MMSTB of oil and 9.3 bscf of gas. The principal problem at the field is productivity and profitability. With time, there has been a decrease in oil production, while operating costs continue to increase. To maintain pressure in the reservoir, increasing amounts of water must be injected annually. The major producibility problems are related to cost-effective, field-scale reservoir management; reservoir connectivity caused by carbonate rock architecture and heterogeneity; pressure communication caused by carbonate petrophysical and engineering properties; and costeffective operations associated with the oil recovery process. The purposes of this paper therefore are to (1) characterize the geologic, petrophysical, and engineering properties of the Smackover reservoir intervals at Womack Hill field; (2) construct a threedimensional (3-D) geologic model and a reservoir simulation model for the reservoir intervals; and (3) use the reservoir characterization, engineering reservoir performance analysis, and geologic and

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama for access to cores, well files, and production data from Womack Hill field. Pruet Production Co. provided the water injection and production data from this field. The reservoir characterization, geologic visualization modeling, and reservoir simulation were accomplished using software provided by Landmark Graphics Corporation. We thank Leonard Brown, Jack Pashin, and Mihaela Ryer for their reviews of the manuscript. This research has been funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) through its National Energy Technology Laboratory to the University of Alabama. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the DOE.

1630

E&P Notes

Mancini et al.

Figure 1. Production by well in Womack Hill field and location of cross section AA0. Note the most productive wells are in the south-central part of the field. See the Appendix for well permit information.

1631

reservoir simulation modeling to assess the current field-scale reservoir management practices to provide a foundation for improving production from this field.

GEOLOGIC RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION Reservoir characterization of the Smackover carbonate facies at Womack Hill field (Figure 1) has included the description of the six available cores (Figure 2) and petrographic analysis of 304 thin sections. In addition, electrical and geophysical logs for 37 wells and core analyses for 24 wells (Figure 3) were studied. The core data were calibrated to the well-log patterns to establish electrofacies for correlation, mapping, and modeling. In the Womack Hill field, the Smackover Formation ranges in thickness from 67 to 129 m (220 to 422 ft), has an average thickness of 104 m (340 ft), and overlies sandstone of the Norphlet Formation. The Norphlet Formation overlies the Jurassic Louann Salt, which, in combination with faulting, is responsible for the petroleum trap at the field. The Smackover Formation is overlain by the Buckner Anhydrite Member of the Haynesville Formation. These anhydrite beds form the top seal in the field. The Smackover Formation includes lower, middle, and upper units in the Womack Hill field. The lower member or unit of the Smackover is typically composed of peloidal packstone and wackestone (Benson, 1988). The middle member or unit includes laminated lime mudstone and fossiliferous wackestone and lime mudstone. Porosity is developed in the upper part of the middle Smackover in the south-central part of the field. The upper member or unit ranges in thickness from 13 to 64 m (44 to 209 ft), has an average thickness of 37 m (120 ft) (Figure 3), and consists of a series of three cycles (Figures 4, 5). Stratigraphically, these cycles are higher order parasequences that accumulated as part of the highstand or regressive systems tract of an Upper Jurassic depositional sequence. The upper cycle (cycle 3) is a shoaling-upward parasequence composed of lower energy, lime mudstone and peloidal wackestone at the base capped by higher energy, ooid grainstone. The lime mudstone and wackestone (generally less porous strata) have been

Figure 2. Structure map of the top of the Smackover Formation at Womack Hill field, location of injection wells, cores studied, and outline of areas with high potential for containing undrained and attic oil in the field. Note petroleum trap types. See Figure 1 for well symbols. 1632 E&P Notes

Figure 3. Isopach map of the upper part of the Smackover Formation at Womack Hill field and location of wells with core analysis data. Note thickness variations in the upper Smackover interval. See Figure 1 for well symbols. interpreted as restricted bay and lagoon sediment, and the grainstone has been described as shoreface and shoal deposits (generally porous strata) (McKee, 1990). Although this cycle is present across the field (Figure 5), its reservoir quality varies. The cycle has an average thickness of 9 m (30 ft). The grainstone associated with this cycle is dolomitized in much of the field area and is the main reservoir interval perforated in the field. The dolomitized portion of cycle 3 is part of the upper dolomitized zone in the field (Figure 4). Hydrocarbons have been produced from this cycle in 21 of the 27 productive wells in the field. Six wells (wells 1678, 1781, 1826, 2257B, 2327, and 3657) have been perforated only in this cycle, and the cumulative oil production ranges from 0.13 to 1.97 MMSTB of oil (Figure 1). Porosity and permeability in the more productive wells (e.g., well 1678) in cycle 3 average 21.0% and 59.3 md, respectively (Figure 6A), and porosity and permeability in the less productive wells (e.g., well 2327) average 12% and 3 md, respectively. The lime mudstone and wackestone in the lower part of the cycle have potential to be a barrier to vertical flow in the field. The middle cycle (cycle 2) and the lower cycle (cycle 1) also occur across the field. Cycle 2 has an average thickness of 14 m (47 ft), and cycle 1 has an average thickness of 12 m (40 ft). These cycles include shoal grainstone/packstone facies, which is underlain by lagoonal mudstone and wackestone deposits. The reservoir intervals associated with these cycles are a result of depositional and diagenetic processes. Dolomitization can be pervasive in the shoal grainstone lithofacies and, in some cases, in the lagoon mudstone and wackestone lithofacies of these cycles and in the interval immediately below cycle 1. The dolomitized portion of these cycles and the interval below cycle 1 is part of the lower dolomitized zone in the field (Figure 4). Hydrocarbons have been produced from cycle 2 in 18 wells and from cycle 1 in 6 wells. Three wells (wells 1847, 2248B, and 2263; see Appendix) have been perforated only in cycle 2, and the cumulative oil production is 0.353.18 MMSTB of oil per well (Figure 1). One well (2109) has been perforated only in cycle 1, and its cumulative oil production is 1.72 MMSTB of oil (Figure 1). Porosity and permeability in well 1720 (see Appendix) average 20.3% and 61.7 md, respectively, for cycle 2 (Figure 6B), and porosity and permeability in well 1591 (see Appendix) average 18.0% and 18.8 md, respectively, for cycle 1 (Figure 6C). Production from the upper part of the middle Smackover interval immediately below cycle 1 (Figure 4) is from one well (4575B, see Appendix) that is located in the south-central part of the field. This well is perforated only in this interval. Cumulative oil production for well 4575B is 2.48 MMSTB of oil (Figure 1). Porosity and permeability in well 4575B for the porous zone below cycle 1 average 23.4% and 21.2 md, respectively (Figure 6D). Permeability shows good correlation (0.74 0.81) with porosity in these four reservoir intervals (Figure 6). The most productive well (1804) in the field is perforated in all three cycles, and the cumulative production is 3.4 MMSTB of oil (Figure 1). Porosity and permeability in these three cycles in this well average 20.1% and 5.1 md, respectively. Although the primary control on reservoir architecture in Smackover carbonates, including Womack Hill field, is the depositional fabric, diagenesis is a significant factor in modifying reservoir quality (Benson, 1985). Of the diagenetic events, multiple dolomitization and Mancini et al. 1633

Figure 4. Well-log patterns for well 1667 in Womack Hill field illustrating stratigraphic units, upper Smackover cycles, porous (U) and less porous (L) portions of the cycles, porous zone below cycle 1, and upper and lower dolomitized zones. See Figure 1 for well location.

dissolution events probably had the greatest influence on reservoir quality in the Smackover Formation. Although dolomitization created only minor amounts of intercrystalline porosity, it significantly enhanced permeability; it also stabilized the lithology that reduced the potential for later porosity loss because of compaction (Benson, 1985). The dissolution events enlarged primary (interparticle) and early secondary (moldic and intercrystalline) pores (McKee, 1990). Although dissolution did not create large amounts of new porosity, it did expand existing pore throats and enhance permeability (Benson, 1985). Porosity in the shoal grainstone reservoir intervals at Womack Hill field is both primary and secondary. The main pore types in Smackover reservoirs, including 1634 E&P Notes

the Womack Hill field area, are interparticle, solutionenlarged interparticle, grain moldic, intercrystalline dolomite, and vuggy (Hopkins, 2002). Primary interparticle porosity has been reduced in the field because of compaction and cementation. Solution-enlarged interparticle and grain moldic porosity is produced by early leaching in the vadose zone that dissolved aragonite in the Smackover carbonates (McKee, 1990). Moldic porosity is produced by early, fabric-selective dissolution of aragonitic grains and is associated with areas of subaerial exposure (Benson, 1985). Several phases of dolomitization have been identified in the Smackover carbonates at Womack Hill field. The upper zone of dolomitization is fabric destructive and is the result of an early-stage, diagenetic event involving the

Mancini et al.

Figure 5. Cross section AA0 across Womack Hill field showing lateral variations in the thickness of the cycle intervals in the upper Smackover. GR = gamma-ray log, DPHI = density porosity log, NPHI = neutron porosity log, RHOB = bulk density log. See Figure 1 for the location of the wells.

1635

Figure 6. Porosity vs. permeability plots for reservoir zones (cycles) in wells in the Womack Hill field: (A) cycle 3, well 1678; (B) cycle 2, well 1720; (C) cycle 1, well 1591; and (D) below cycle 1, well 4575B. See Figure 1 for the location and productivity of wells. downward movement of evaporitically concentrated brine (Tedesco, 2002). The lower zone of dolomitization contains large amounts of intercrystalline porosity and permeability and is the result, in part, of fabricdestructive, mixing-zone processes (Tedesco, 2002). Vuggy porosity, as defined by Choquette and Pray (1970), is present in the field area as the product of late, nonfabric-selective dissolution of calcite or dolomite and is produced by solution enlargement of earlier formed interparticle or intercrystalline pores (Benson, 1985; Benson and Mancini, 1999). Smackover reservoirs characterized by vuggy porosity have high porosity (up to 29%) and permeability (up to 4106 md) values (Benson and Mancini, 1984; Mancini et al., 2000). 1636 E&P Notes Pore systems are the fundamental building blocks of reservoir architecture. Pore origin, geometry, and spatial distribution determine the amount and kind of reservoir heterogeneity. Pore systems affect not only hydrocarbon storage and flow but also reservoir producibility and flow-unit quality and comparative rank in a field. Hydrocarbon recovery efficiency and total recovery volume are determined by the 3-D shape and size of the pores and pore throats (KopaskaMerkel and Hall, 1993; Ahr and Hammel, 1999). Therefore, the pore systems (pore topology and geometry and pore-throat size distribution) of the Womack Hill field reservoir intervals are extremely important. Porethroat size distribution is one of the important factors

determining permeability because the smallest pore throats are the bottlenecks that determine the rate at which fluid can pass through a rock. Permeability has been shown to be directly related to the inherent pore system and degree of heterogeneity in Smackover reservoirs (Carlson et al., 1998; Mancini et al., 2000). Generally, the more homogeneous (little variability in architecture and pore systems) the reservoir, the greater the hydrocarbon recovery from that reservoir. However, heterogeneity at one scale is not necessarily paralleled by heterogeneity at other scales. For example, the shoal grainstone reservoir intervals at Womack Hill field can be dominated by an interparticle and solution-enlarged, moldic and intercrystalline, or intercrystalline and vuggy pore system and have low mesoscopic-scale heterogeneity but low to high microscopic-scale heterogeneity, depending on the pore system. Such heterogeneity is a function of both depositional and diagenetic processes. The grainstone deposits accumulated in shoal environments, which tend to have uniformity of paleoenvironmental conditions in a given shoal, but these carbonates can be later subjected to dissolution and dolomitization, such as at Womack Hill field, to produce dolograinstone and coarse (large) crystalline dolostone. The moldic and intercrystalline pore system produced is characterized by pores of variable size that are poorly connected by narrow pore throats. Pore size is dependent on the size of the carbonate grain that was leached. The intercrystalline and vuggy pore system is characterized by more large-sized pores that are interconnected by larger and more uniform pore throats. The size of the pores is dependent on the dolomite crystal size. Interparticle porosity of Lucia (1999), which includes intergrain and intercrystal pore types in grainstone, dolograinstone, and large crystalline dolostone, provides for high connectivity in carbonate reservoirs and high permeability (Lucia, 1999; Jennings and Lucia, 2001). In the Womack Hill field, leached and dolomitized grainstone flow units dominated by moldic and intercrystalline porosity have lower reservoir potential than the grainstone flow units dominated by depositional interparticle and solution-enlarged porosity because the leached (moldic) grainstone pore system is characterized by a higher percentage of small-sized pores poorly connected by narrow pore throats. Dolostone flow units dominated by intercrystalline and vuggy porosity have the highest reservoir potential because of a pore system characterized by a higher percentage of large-sized pores interconnected by larger and more uniform pore throats.

ENGINEERING DATA AND ANALYSIS The production history for Womack Hill field reflects a rapid development in the number of producing wells (17 wells from 1971 to 1973). After the initial drilling phase, the oil production rate began to decline, and a pressure maintenance project involving the injection of fresh and salt water was implemented in the unitized western area of the field. The initiation of this project arrested production decline in this part of the field. The current production decline is caused by wells being taken offline, decreased injection capacity, and a need for workovers on producing wells. Oil and gas production for the field has reached a plateau, while water production continues to rise (Figure 7), indicating that the field is approaching maximum recovery. Womack Hill field has continuously produced more water than the amount of water being injected, suggesting that an external source of water (adjoining and/ or underlying aquifer) is contributing as a production mechanism (water drive) in the field. The reservoir fluid sample for pressure, volume, and temperature analysis for the Smackover reservoir confirms that the fluid in Womack Hill field reservoir is a conventional black oil. The original reservoir pressure was 5433 psia, the bubble-point pressure was 1925 psig, the separator gas-oil ratio was 579 scf/STB, and the separator oil gravity was 42.6j API for a separator pressure of 100 psig and a temperature of 74jF. At the bubble point, the formation volume factor of the oil was 1.41 reservoir bbl/stock tank bbl at 400 psig, and the viscosity of the oil at a temperature of 212jF has a minimum of 0.342 cp. Reservoir performance analysis, using decline-type curve analysis for an unfractured well model after Doublet and Blasingame (1995) (Figure 8) and estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) analysis (oil-flow rate/pressure drop vs. cumulative oil production) after Fetkovich (1980) (Figure 9), shows good volumetric correlation of fluid volumes for high-producing wells and indicates that low-producing wells correlate with lower reservoir continuity. Good correlation is evident for the production data and model trends in the field as illustrated for well 1639 in Figure 8. A strong depletion trend (terminal production decline) for production in the field is evident in Figure 9 as shown for well 1639. In utilizing cumulative oil and water production from the field, ultimate oil recovery for the field will approximate at least 34.6 MMSTB of oil. Using EUR, conservatively about 10% of the recoverable 34.6 MMSTB of oil remains to be produced from Mancini et al. 1637

Figure 7. Production and water injection history of the Womack Hill field. Oil and gas production rates have declined, water production rate has increased, and gas-oil ratio (GOR) has remained constant. Water injection efficiency appears to be declining. The higher volume of produced water is probably caused by an external water influx.

Figure 8. Decline-type curve analysis for an unfractured well model after Doublet and Blasingame (1995) for well 1639, Womack Hill field. Most of the data lie in the boundary-dominated flow region, and the transient flow regime is less well defined. See Figure 1 for well location. 1638 E&P Notes

Figure 9. Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) analysis (oil flow rate/pressure drop vs. cumulative oil production) for well 1639, Womack Hill field. Cumulative production is approaching total recoverable oil. See Figure 1 for well location.

Womack Hill field. With production from the field totaling 31.2 MMSTB of oil, at least 3.4 MMSTB of oil remains to be recovered. In Figure 10, the dimensionless multiwell performance index (DMPI) approach of Valko et al. (2000) is computed for the individual wells in Womack Hill field. Figure 10A shows the DMPI determined using total rates of oil and water, and Figure 10B illustrates the DMPI computed using only the total oil rate. This analysis shows that the influence of a water drive, either by water injection and/or influx, is pervasive in the field reservoir. Essentially, every well reflects a strong influence of external energy support. For wells in the eastern area of the field, this support is probably from an adjoining and/or underlying aquifer. In the unitized western area of the field, injection of water provides the external support. In using exponential and harmonic rate decline cases to evaluate the production behavior of the reservoir in the western unitized and eastern areas of the field (Figure 11), production at Womack Hill field is shown to be best characterized by the exponential rate decline case (natural depletion). Pressure transient tests were conducted for wells 1655, 1678, 1804, and 4575B to characterize the reservoir (Figure 12). The pressure transient tests support the interpretations that compartmentalization is a characteristic of the Womack Hill field reservoir (Figure 12A, B), that production from wells in the eastern area of the field is facilitated by a natural external influx of water from the bottom up (Figure 12C), and that a fault bounds the field to the south (Figure 12D). In using the engineering property data, analysis, and interpretation to evaluate the effectiveness of the pres-

sure maintenance program, a correlation of oil production, water injection, and structure is evident in Womack Hill field. Oil production appears to be correlated with reservoir structure, and water injection appears to be correlated with oil production (Figure 13). Therefore, water injection should be continued and conducted downdip and focused toward areas of the field that are structurally low to maximize the effect of the water injection for pressure maintenance. The remaining oil to be recovered in the field is concentrated in the southcentral part of the field in the vicinity of well 4575B and along a west-east trend in the eastern area of the field, north of wells 1826, 1825, and 1760.

3-D GEOLOGIC MODELING The stratigraphic, sedimentologic, and petrophysical information obtained from core, well-log, and thinsection analysis is fundamental to the construction of the 3-D geologic model. These data and information from the subsurface structure and isopach maps and cross sections are integrated into the model to illustrate Smackover cycle distribution, thickness, reservoir quality, and structural configuration. The 3-D geologic model illustrates that the petroleum trap at Womack Hill field is more complex than originally interpreted (Figure 14). Two-dimensional seismic data were used to assist with the location of a major high-angle normal fault having significant stratal displacement of 411 m (1350 ft) (McKee, 1990) to the south of the field. Based on bed elevations and subsurface mapping, the trap in the western part of the field can be described as a fault trap (footwall Mancini et al. 1639

Figure 10. Dimensionless multiwell performance index (DMPI) computed for wells in the Womack Hill field: (A) Total oil and water rates are used in this calculation, and (B) total oil rates only are used in this calculation. uplift with closure to the south against the major westsoutheasttrending normal fault), and the trap in the eastern part of the field appears to be a salt-cored anticline with four-way dip closure (Figures 2, 14). In the south-central part of the field, there is a third, smaller structure related to a possible southwestnortheast trending high-angle normal fault, with its displacement decreasing gradually to the north (Figures 2, 14). Although there is no direct evidence of this fault, the mapped surface at the top of the Smackover Formation suggests the presence of such a 1640 E&P Notes normal fault. Additionally, two-dimensional seismic data immediately north of the field show the presence of north-south trending normal faults. The southwest-northeast trending fault could have formed as the result of the accommodation of differential vertical displacement related to the bend in the strike of the major normal fault to the south. The resulting trap is a footwall uplift structure bounded by the major fault to the south, by the accommodation fault to the west and north, and by a dip closure to the east. The southwestnortheast trending fault has the potential to act as a

Mancini et al.

1641

Figure 11. Dimensionless production rate-time type curve, Womack Hill field. (A) Exponential rate decline model compared to production data from the unitized western area. (B) Harmonic rate decline model compared to production data from the unitized western area. (C) Exponential rate decline model compared to production data from the eastern area. (D) Harmonic rate decline model compared to production from the eastern area. The exponential trend is the solution for normal reservoir depletion (for constant pressure production). The general conclusion is that harmonic cases indicate water influx and water injection support.

1642

E&P Notes

Figure 12. Summary plots (no rate history) from the field-testing sequence of wells: (A) well 1655, (B) well 1678, (C) well 1804, and (D) well 4575B, Womack Hill field. See Figure 1 for the location of wells.

Figure 13. Correlation of estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) vs. effective permeability (k) for wells in Womack Hill field. See Figure 1 for the location of wells. WPA = well performance analysis.

flow barrier, thus helping to explain the pressure difference between wells in the western and central parts of the field and wells in the eastern part of the field. Interestingly, the most productive wells (wells 2248B, 2130B, 4575B, and 1804) are located in the southcentral part of the field and are associated with this footwall uplift feature (Figures 1, 2, 14). The 3-D geologic modeling also shows that the reservoir intervals at Womack Hill field are heterogeneous. Although the upper cycle (cycle 3) reservoir interval is the most productive areally (has been productive in 21 wells), the production from this reservoir is highly variable, with cumulative oil production ranging from 0.13 to 1.97 MMSTB of oil for wells perforated only in this cycle. The thickness and reservoir quality are also variable for the upper reservoir interval. The middle cycle (cycle 2) reservoir interval is also heterogeneous in thickness and lateral and vertical reservoir quality; however, the porosity, as indicated by density log analysis, is overall higher in this interval than in the other reservoir intervals (Figure 15). The lower cycle (cycle 1) reservoir interval is also het-

erogeneous in thickness and reservoir quality. Although the total oil production from this cycle is not as high as the cycle 2 or cycle 3 reservoir intervals, well 2109, the only well solely perforated in cycle 1 and located in the unitized western part of the field, has had a cumulative oil production of 1.72 MMSTB of oil (Figure 1). The reservoir interval immediately below cycle 1 has been perforated in one well (4575B) in the south-central portion of the field. Reservoir quality in this well is high, and production is high. This reservoir interval has potential for high reservoir quality in the vicinity of well 2109 (Figures 2, 14). The high reservoir quality and productivity in this interval in well 4575B is attributed to mixing-zone dolomitization (freshwater lens development in structurally higher areas of the field). The area around well 2109 is structurally high. In the eastern part of the field, the structurally high area north of wells 1804, 1826, 1825, and 1760 and the structurally high area around wells 1781 and 1847 have excellent potential for remaining oil to be recovered (Figures 2, 14). Wells 1781 and 1847 continue to be highly productive wells, and Mancini et al. 1643

Figure 14. Three-dimensional geologic model of Womack Hill field. Note structurally high areas in the vicinity of wells 2109 and 4575B, north of wells 1826, 1825, and 1760, and in the area of well 1781. See Figure 2 for the structural map of the field.

well 1804 is the most productive well in the field (Figure 1). The recent (2003) successful drilling of well 12762 immediately northwest of well 1826 supports this interpretation. This well was perforated at 3452 3455 m (11,324 11,336 ft) and tested 160 STB of oil/day. The shut-in bottomhole pressure for the well was 4760 psia. The well had produced 18,415 STB of oil and 113,505 STB of water through December 2003. A porosity (fluid-flow) barrier, especially apparent in the cycle 3 reservoir interval, appears to be present between the unitized western area and eastern areas of the field (Figure 15). Comparing the porosity and permeability data between wells 1748 and 1804, it appears that there is flow communication in the field through the cycle 2 reservoir interval. The improved reservoir communication in the cycle 2 reservoir interval is probably a result of dolomitization. Porosity and permeability data are insufficient in the field to assess the potential of a barrier to flow in the cycle 1 reservoir interval and the reservoir interval immediately below cycle 1. Communication also appears likely between the eastern part of the unitized western area (wells 2130B, 2248B, and 4575B) and the area around well 1804 because these wells are draining hydrocarbons from the same trap located in the south-central part of 1644 E&P Notes

the field (Figures 2, 14). However, communication between the wells in the unitized western area and the other wells east of well 1804 in the eastern area of the field probably is limited because of a combination of structural and petrophysical factors. The cycle 1 reservoir interval and the reservoir interval immediately below cycle 1 are underdeveloped reservoir intervals in the unitized western area of the field. Specifically, the area south of well 2109 has the potential to contain undrained attic oil. This possibility is based on the interpretation that the petroleum trap in the western part of the field is a fault trap, and this structure is similar to the North Choctaw Ridge field structure interpreted by Qi et al. (1998). The reservoir volume was increased by 12% at North Choctaw Ridge field if the structural trap is interpreted as a footwall uplift along a fault instead of a faulted anticline (Qi et al., 1998). The structurally high position of the acreage south of well 2109 makes the area a strong candidate to contain a dolomitized cycle 1 reservoir interval and a dolomitized reservoir interval below cycle 1. This observation is based on the concept that the high reservoir quality and productivity of the reservoir interval below cycle 1 in well 4575B are caused by mixing-zone dolomitization (freshwater lens) as a result of association with the structurally

Figure 15. Cross section across Womack Hill field showing changes in porosity for the upper Smackover reservoir intervals as determined from density log analysis. This cross section corresponds to the cross section illustrated in Figure 5. See Figure 1 for the location of the wells. high position of these wells. Because the reservoir interval below cycle 1 has only been perforated on the eastern margin of the unitized area and no injection is occurring in this zone, any oil in this interval in the western part of the unitized area probably has not been drained. The lateral heterogeneity in this interval probably precludes this oil from being drained by the wells located on the eastern margin of the unitized area. The cumulative oil production from well 2109, the only well solely perforated in the cycle 1 reservoir interval, supports the concept that the area south of this well contains oil. model. The geologic model was upscaled for the simulation modeling. The simulation model used a grid of 60 30 cells and 19 layers. Each cell was approximately 216 82 m (414 268 ft) areally. In reservoir zones, the grid cells were 3 m (10 ft) or less in thickness, and in the strata below the reservoir zones, the cells were 30 m (100 ft) or more in thickness. The model consisted of the following layers: layer 1 (above cycle 3 interval), layers 2 6 (cycle 3 interval), layers 7 13 (cycle 2 interval), and layers 14 19 (cycle 1 interval and porous interval below cycle 1). An aquifer was attached to the lowest layer (layer 19) of the model because field production was determined to be supported by water influx. The original oil-water contact was reported at 3463 m (11,360 ft). This contact was varied during the history match. Because relative permeability and capillary pressure data were not available for this study, various sets of relative permeability and capillary pressure curves were tested in the history-matching process. In the final version of the model, the relative permeability curves included a residual oil saturation of 0.3 and an Mancini et al. 1645

RESERVOIR SIMULATION Reservoir simulation has produced a model for the Womack Hill field reservoir based on the 3-D geologic model, and this simulation model has been used for history matching. The static data for the reservoir simulation model, such as permeability, porosity, and geometry, were obtained from well-log and core data, reservoir performance analysis, and the 3-D geologic

endpoint water relative permeability of 1.0. The capillary pressure curves used represent strong imbibition water. To match the water influx, a value of 1.0 was used for the ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability. With the capillary pressure and oil-water contact defined for a particular simulation, the modeling was commenced for an initial fluid distribution. Monthly oil and gas production volumes used for the study were available from the beginning of production in the field in 1970. Monthly volumes of water production and of water injection data were acquired for each well since 1982. The lack of water production data from 1970 to 1982 was an issue in the historymatching process because it was difficult to determine when breakthrough occurred in many of the wells in the field. Well completion and perforation depths and dates were also obtained. A significant change in field operations occurred in 1990 1991 when jet pumps were installed in the production wells. The increase in field watercut that occurred at the time may be a result of this operational change. Acid treatments were performed periodically in the wells. During the history-matching process, the wells were operated by withdrawing the same amount of oil as was historically produced. Because pressure data were limited, the success of the history match was judged by the ability to match the reported water production data from the simulation modeling. Analysis of the production data shows that the reservoir has remained above the bubble point; therefore, detailed history matching information could not be obtained from the gas production data. Initially, global model parameters, such as the water-oil contact depth, ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability, degree of connectivity between the unitized western and eastern areas of the field, and the aquifer strength and location, were adjusted to achieve the best possible match. Based on the results of the production data analysis and well test analysis, compartmentalization was introduced using transmissibility barriers around well 1804. This well has been the most productive well in the field and probably is producing from its own reservoir compartment. In this stage of the history-matching study, the impact of changes in global parameters was evaluated to gain insight into the key factors controlling flow in the reservoir. Twentyfour simulation runs were made, systematically varying the oil-water contact depth, the aquifer location (under the entire reservoir or under the eastern area only), the aquifer strength (weak, strong), and the strength of a possible flow barrier between the unitized western 1646 E&P Notes

and eastern areas of the field. The oil-water contact depth has the strongest influence on cumulative water production. Indications are that the presence of a flow barrier between the unitized western and eastern areas of the field has little impact on cumulative water production. The final phase of the history-matching effort involved making some local changes to the geologic model in the neighborhood of key wells (commonly those with high water and/or oil production). Typically, these changes involved reducing porosity in a window around the well to accelerate the process of water invasion into the well. In some cases, porosity was increased to reduce amounts of water production. These local changes were based on the results from the production data analysis, which assigned in-place volumes to individual wells. The field watercut as determined from the modeling is shown in Figure 16. The final part of the solid line on this figure presents the expected watercut in the field if production is maintained from the existing wells and if two additional infill wells are drilled. The performance of the individual wells was matched with varying degrees of success. Several wells had excellent watercut history matches until 1990. At this point, jet pumps were installed, and the watercut in certain wells showed a marked increase. This effect was very difficult to capture in the reservoir simulation model. Altering the relative permeability curve assigned to the connection between the well and its grid block in the reservoir at the time jet pumps were introduced was the most successful history-matching strategy to account for the installation of the jet pumps. Figure 17 shows the oil saturation in the top of the upper cycle or cycle 3 in the Womack Hill field at the end of the history match (February 2003). The oil saturation is progressively less in layers below the cycle 3 interval. In the unitized western area of the field, there is some remaining mobile oil in the vicinity of wells 4575B and 2109. High remaining oil saturations are in the eastern area of the field, north of wells 1804, 1825, and around well 1781 (Figure 17). These areas are structurally high and are predicted by the geologic model to have reservoir-quality porosity and permeability. To target this remaining oil, the production performance of two infill wells (001 and 002) was simulated. The resulting production profiles are shown in Figure 18. In the simulation model, the wells were perforated above 11,300 ft (3440 m) and produced at a rate of 500 STB of oil/day. Over 5 yr, the cumulative production of

Figure 16. Comparison of actual fieldwide watercut and simulated watercut in the history-match model. The end portion of the simulated watercut curve shows the results of a prediction simulation with two new additional wells drilled in the field. simulated well 001 was 826 MSTB of oil and 888 MSTB of water. Simulated well 002 produced 664 MSTB of oil and 1248 MSTB of water. reservoir management strategy. The Smackover reservoir characterization and modeling at Womack Hill field can be used to assess the current field-scale reservoir management practices in this field. Areas for future consideration for improved field operations include the evaluation of the pressure maintenance and waterflood project in the field, the opportunity for the drilling of infill wells, and the possibility of perforating existing wells in additional porosity zones.

APPLICATION Because of the highly complex nature of carbonate reservoirs, cost-effective development of these reservoirs requires the implementation of an integrated

Figure 17. Oil saturation in the top of zone 3 (cycle 3) interval at the conclusion of the history match (February 2003). Note high remaining oil saturations north of wells 1804 and 1825 and around well 1781 in the eastern area of the field and in the vicinity of wells 4575B and 2109 in the unitized western area. Mancini et al. 1647

Figure 18. Simulated production profiles for potential new infill producing wells drilled in Womack Hill field: (A) simulated well 001 and (B) simulated well 002. See Figure 17 for the location of the wells.

The unit operator is integrating the information from the reservoir characterization, 3-D geologic modeling, reservoir performance analysis, and reservoir simulation into a field-scale reservoir management strategy to improve operations in the Womack Hill field unit. The company will consider perforating wells 4575B and 2109 in higher porosity zones (cycles) in the Smackover reservoir in the unitized western area of the field (Figures 2, 14) at the appropriate time. The areas currently being drained by these wells were shown to have high potential for undrained oil through the 3-D geologic modeling, reservoir performance analysis, and reservoir simulation studies. Potential strategic sites to consider for drilling infill wells to recover additional oil from the field are located in the eastern area of the field (Figures 2, 14, 17). The operator also has used the pressure transient test data to assess the effective1648 E&P Notes

ness of the pressure maintenance project involving water injection in the unitized western area. The reservoir performance, multiwell productivity analysis, and reservoir simulation studies indicate that water injection continues to provide stable support to maintain production from wells in the unitized western area, and that the strong water drive present in the eastern area of the field presently is adequate to sustain production in this part of the Womack Hill field.

CONCLUSIONS 1. Geologic reservoir characterization has shown that the upper part of the Smackover Formation in Womack Hill field is productive from carbonate shoal reservoirs that occur in vertically stacked,

heterogeneous depositional and porosity cycles. The cycles typically consist of lime mudstone and wackestone at the base and ooid grainstone at the top. The lime mudstone and wackestone lithofacies has been interpreted as restricted bay and lagoon sediment, and the grainstone lithofacies has been described as beach shoreface and shoal deposits. The grainstone associated with the upper cycle (cycle 3) is dolomitized (upper dolomitized zone) in much of the field area. Dolomitization (lower dolomitized zone) can be pervasive in the middle cycle (cycle 2) and the lower cycle (cycle 1) and the interval immediately below cycle 1. These cycles occur across the field, but they are laterally heterogeneous in depositional texture and diagenetic fabric. Porosity consists chiefly of depositional interparticle, solution-enlarged interparticle, grain moldic, intercrystalline dolomite and vuggy pores. Dolostone pore systems and flow units dominated by intercrystalline and vuggy pores have the highest reservoir potential. Dolostone flow units have a higher percentage of large-sized pores with larger pore throats, and dolomitized and leached grainstone flow units have a lower percentage of largesized pores with narrow pore throats. 2. Engineering characterization and analysis have shown that the reservoir fluid in Womack Hill field is conventional black oil. Pressure transient test data support the interpretations that the Womack Hill field reservoir is compartmentalized, and that a fault bounds the field reservoir to the south. Reservoir performance analysis indicates good volumetric correlation for high-producing wells, and that lowproducing wells correlate with lower reservoir continuity. Multiwell productivity analysis shows that the influence of water drive by water injection and/or water influx from the aquifer is pervasive in the field reservoir. Production behavior analysis indicates that the production in the field is best characterized by the exponential decline case. Reservoir performance studies have shown that 10% of the recoverable 34.6 MMSTB of oil remains to be produced from the field. The undrained oil is concentrated in structural highs associated with footwall uplifts in the unitized western area and along an elongated west-east anticline in the eastern part of the field. Water injection in the field should be continued and conducted downdip and focused toward areas of the field that are structurally low. 3. A 3-D geologic model has been constructed for the Womack Hill field structure and reservoir. The 3-D geologic modeling shows that the petroleum trap

is more complex than originally interpreted. The petroleum-trapping mechanisms include a fault trap (footwall uplift with closure to the south against a major west-southeasttrending, high-angle normal fault) in the western area, a footwall uplift trap associated with a possible southwest-northeast trending, high-angle normal fault in the south-central area, and a salt-cored anticline with four-way dip closure in the eastern area. The pressure difference between wells in the unitized western area of the field and wells in the eastern area of the field may be attributed to a flow barrier caused by the presence of a possible southwest-northeasttrending fault and a change in porosity and/or permeability in Smackover facies. The geologic modeling shows that the Smackover reservoirs are heterogeneous. The petrophysical component of the barrier to flow is present potentially in the vicinity of the unit line between the unitized western and the eastern areas of the field. Reservoir characterization and geologic modeling have shown that four areas in the Womack Hill field have potential for the recovery of undrained oil. 4. Reservoir simulation has produced a model for the Womack Hill field reservoir based on the 3-D geologic model and reservoir performance analysis. Analysis of the production data shows that the reservoir has remained above the bubble point. The simulation model has been used successfully for history matching. The depth of the oil-water contact has the strongest influence on cumulative water production. The history match of the performance of the field is satisfactory, and the reservoir simulation model indicates that oil remains to be recovered in the eastern area of the field. The unitized western area of the field appears to have some oil remaining to be recovered. 5. The operator for the Womack Hill field unit is integrating the information and results from this study into a field-scale reservoir management strategy to improve operations at the Womack Hill field. The company will consider perforating wells in higher porosity zones in the Smackover reservoir to recover attic oil in the unitized western area at the appropriate time. The operator is using the pressure transient test data to assess the effectiveness of the pressure maintenance project involving water injection in the unitized western area. The company is evaluating the cost-effectiveness and risks associated with instituting an infill drilling program to recover undrained oil in the eastern area of the Womack Hill field. Mancini et al. 1649

APPENDIX: LISTING OF WELLS IN THE WOMACK HILL FIELD AREA


Well Permit Number* 1573-WI-69 1579 1591-WI-77-1 1635 1639 1655 1667 1678-WI-93-8 1697 1713-SWD-74-24 1720-WI-77-2 1732-B 1748-WI-92-1 1760 1781 1804 1811-SWD-75-104 1825 1826 1847 1890-SWD-83-3 1899 2109 2130-B 2168-WI-72 2183 2257-B 2263-SWD-85-5 2327 2341 2737-B 2916 3657 4335-B 4575-B 4805-B 4852-B 4860 12762 *WI = water injection; SWD = salt water disposal. Well Name Carlisle 16-4 Dungan 17-5 Scruggs, Parker & Norton 9-14 Martin-Norton et al. 9-12 Fluker-Bend-Scruggs 9-15 Parker-Locke 9-16 Locke 10-13 Locke 10-14 McPhearson 8-15 Turner 13-1 Womack Hill 15-2 Gross Turner 15-4 Locke S. L. 15-1 Turner 13-5 Turner 13-6 Turner 14-6 Knight 13-15 Gross Turner 14-8 Gross Turner 14-7 Turner 13-7 Turner 13-9 Counselman 18-12 Womack Hill 9-16-A Womack Hill 14-4-A Womack Hill WI 9-10 Louise Locke 1 Womack Hill 15-4 Turner 13-21 Turner 13-25 Gross Turner 14-8A Womack Hill 15-2-A White 19-5 Turner 13-21A Womack Hill 14-12 Womack Hill 14-5 2 Womack Hill 14-6 2 C. A. Cox Estate 15-8 Gross-Turner 14-10 Gross Turner 14-7 2 Company Pruet Production Co. Getty Oil Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet & Hughes-Pelto Oil Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet & Hughes-Pelto Oil Co. Placid Oil Co. Pruet Production Co. Placid Oil Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. Exxon Corp. Exxon Corp. Pruet Production Co. Petro-Lewis Corp. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. FMP Operating Co., Ltd. Ptn. North American Royalties Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. J. R. Pounds, Inc. Placid Oil Co. Midroc Operating Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. Pruet Production Co. Petro-Lewis Corp. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. Exxon Corp. J. R. Pounds, Inc.

REFERENCES CITED
Ahr, W. M., and B. Hammel, 1999, Identification and mapping flow units in carbonate reservoirs: An example from Spraberry (Permian) field, Garza County, Texas, U.S.A.: Energy Exploration and Exploitation, v. 17, p. 311 334. Benson, D. J., 1985, Diagenetic controls on reservoir development and quality, Smackover Formation of southwest Alabama: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 35, p. 317 326. Benson, D. J., 1988, Depositional history of the Smackover Formation in southwest Alabama: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 38, p. 197 205. Benson, D. J., and E. A. Mancini, 1984, Porosity development and reservoir characteristics of the Smackover Formation in southwest Alabama, in Jurassic of the Gulf Rim: Proceedings Gulf Coast Section SEPM Foundation 3rd Research, p. 1 17.

Benson, D. J., and E. A. Mancini, 1999, Diagenetic influence on reservoir development and quality in the Smackover updip basement ridge play, southwest Alabama: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Society Transactions, v. 99, p. 95 101. Carlson, E. C., D. J. Benson, R. H. Groshong, and E. A. Mancini, 1998, Improved oil recovery from heterogeneous carbonate reservoirs associated with paleotopographic basement structures: Appleton field, Alabama: Society of Petroleum Engineers/Department of Energy 11th Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, p. 99 105. Choquette, P. W., and L. C. Pray, 1970, Geologic nomenclature and classification of porosity in sedimentary carbonates: AAPG Bulletin, v. 54, p. 207 250. Doublet, L. E., and T. A. Blasingame, 1995, Decline curve analysis using type curves: Water influx/waterflood cases: Presented at the 1995 Annual Society of Petroleum Engineers Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 22 25, SPE Paper 30774, 32 p.

1650

E&P Notes

Fetkovich, M. J., 1980, Decline curve analysis using type curves: Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 32, no. 6, p. 1065 1077. Hopkins, T. L., 2002, Integrated petrographic and petrophysical study of the Smackover Formation, Womack Hill field, Clarke and Choctaw counties, Alabama: M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 156 p. Jennings, J. W., and F. J. Lucia, 2001, Predicting permeability from well logs in carbonates with a link to geology for interwell permeability mapping: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper 71336, p. 1 16. Kopaska-Merkel, D. C., and D. R. Hall, 1993, Reservoir characterization of the Smackover Formation in southwest Alabama: Geological Survey of Alabama Bulletin, v. 153, 111 p. Lucia, F. J., 1999, Carbonate reservoir characterization: New York, Springer, 226 p. Mancini, E. A., D. J. Benson, B. S. Hart, R. S. Balch, W. C. Parcell, and B. J. Panetta, 2000, Appleton field case study (eastern Gulf coastal plain): Field development model for Upper Jurassic

microbial reef reservoirs associated with paleotopographic basement structures: AAPG Bulletin, v. 84, p. 1699 1717. McKee, D. A., 1990, Structural controls on lithofacies and petroleum geology of the Smackover Formation: Eastern Mississippi Interior Salt basin, Alabama: M.S. thesis, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 254 p. Qi, J., J. C. Pashin, and R. H. Groshong, Jr., 1998, Structure and evolution of North Choctaw Ridge field, Alabama, a salt related footwall uplift along the peripheral fault system, Gulf Coast basin: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 48, p. 349 359. Tedesco, W. A., 2002, Dolomitization and reservoir development of the Upper Jurassic Smackover Formation, Womack Hill field, eastern Gulf coastal plain: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi, 251 p. Valko, P. P., L. E. Doublet, and T. A. Blasingame, 2000, Development and application of the multiwell productivity index (MPI): Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, v. 5, p. 1.

Mancini et al.

1651