SPE-177392-MS

The Hydrodynamic Aquifer Studies in Azeri Field

Murad Asgarov, Jabbar Bayramov, Vidadi Mamiyev, and Turan Ibrahimov, BP

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Caspian Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Baku, Azerbaijan, 4 – 6 November 2015.

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
The Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli (ACG) oil field is located in the hydrodynamic environment of the South
Caspian Basin (SCB). The presence of lateral pressure variations in such systems results in tilted
hydrocarbon-water contacts. Besides the tilt, the eastern part of the field demonstrates unexpected fluid
contacts observed from several appraisal and development wells. These unexpected contacts are not in
accordance with tilts and cannot be explained by hydrodynamism only.
Proposed solution to explain contact anomalies in the eastern part of the structure is to analyze the
effects of permeability barriers on fluid contacts in hydrodynamic environment. Analysis is done through
mechanistic model simulations. It was determined that barriers influence the contacts in hydrodynamic
aquifer environment and it is possible to explain aforementioned contact anomalies by plausible barrier
arrangement.
Incorporation of study results into the Azeri full field model (FFM) resulted in better pressure and
saturation match.

Introduction
The ACG is the oil field (50 km x 5 km) in the Azerbaijan sector of the SCB (Figure 1). This structure
is located on the eastern end of a long regional anticlinal feature known as the Apsheron Trend. ACG
development comprises nine hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs that are regionally identifiable and laterally
extensive. From the reservoir management point of view field is divided into two sections – Azeri, and
Chirag and Deep Water Gunashli (CDWG).
The Azeri field is located in the eastern part of the ACG structure. The field was developed from three
– West, Central and East Azeri platforms and was subdivided accordingly into three sections. Production
from the field started in Feb-2005 from the Central Azeri. Early development is mainly focused on the
Fasila B and D, which are the two of the five sub-layers of Fasila (otherwise known as Pereriv) reservoir.
These sub-layers have good reservoir quality and are correlatable across SCB. Fasila B is the main
contributor to overall production from the field.
One of the important characteristics of the Azeri field (as well as the ACG) is the oil-water contact
(OWC) difference between the south and the north flank: OWC was found to be approximately 400 m
deeper on the north flank compared to the south flank of the structure (Figure 2). Analysis of pressure data
acquired from appraisal wells shows decreasing aquifer overpressures from the south to the north flank
2 SPE-177392-MS

Figure 1—South Caspian Basin overpressure distribution map for Fasila. Overpressure decreases from the center of the basin to the
northern margins. Dashed lines on the white background indicate the borders of Area I, II and III defined by Bredehoeft et al. 1988. Area
III exhibits the highest overpressure, while Area I has the lowest overpressure in the region. Fluid flow follows lateral overpressure
gradient and occurs from the basin center to the northern margins of basin. Shah Deniz and ACG are located on the pathway of dynamic
fluid flow (modified after Javanshir et al. 2015)

and defines the simple south to north water potential gradient in the aquifer (Tozer and Borthwick, 2010.
Such behavior strongly suggests the existence of hydrodynamic aquifer beneath the oil leg (Tozer and
Borthwick, 2010; Javanshir et al., 2015). Hydrodynamic aquifer causes tilt in contacts and that is why
OWC is deeper on the north flank compared to the south flank of the Azeri field. Tilted contacts are
observed both in Fasila B and D.
SPE-177392-MS 3

Figure 2—Tilted hydrocarbon-water contacts in ACG (modified after Javanshir et al. 2015)

Hydrodynamic Aquifers
In hydrostatic environment, where there is no lateral pressure variation in the aquifer, OWCs are
horizontal. In hydrodynamic environment, on the other hand, existence of lateral pressure variations may
cause flow in the aquifer and result in tilted OWCs. Underlying principles of hydrodynamism and tilting
resulting from lateral pressure variations were first explained by Hubbert (1953). He derived the equation
to predict inclination angle of hydrocarbon-water contacts and stated that tilt can occur in oil, as well as
in gas reservoirs. As a source of lateral pressure variations, Hubbert (1953) focused on ground water
circulation as a result of influx from neighboring highlands. In this case, aquifer flow occurs towards the
basin center. Sediment compaction (Dennis et al., 2000; Bredehoeft et al., 1988; Javanshir et al., 2015),
tectonic activities (Estrada and Mantilla, 2000), lateral temperature gradients (Stenger, 1999; Anderson,
2005) are viewed as other possible mechanisms for lateral pressure variations.

Regional Hydrodynamism
Presence of hydrodynamic activity has been reported for SCB as well (Bredehoeft et al., 1988; Tozer and
Borthwick, 2010; Javanshir et al., 2015). In their work, Bredehoeft et al. (1988) stated that the presence
of lateral regional sandstone overpressure gradient with the highest overpressures around the basin center;
and indicated that, as a result, lateral fluid flow occurs from the basin center to the margins. Based on
available data, they have also divided SCB into three areas in terms of overpressure – with overpressures
decreasing from Area III (center of the basin) to Area I (Figure 1). These conclusions were derived from
the data collected from onshore and near shore reservoirs that had a significant production history.
Observations made by Bredehoeft et al. (1988) were later complemented by Javanshir et al. This
research extended the available database to deeper waters of Caspian Sea with additional data acquired
from the exploration drilling in SCB and development of ACG and Shah Deniz (SD) fields; and confirmed
the previous statements on the existence of regional sandstone overpressure gradient (Figure 1). They have
also indicated that the overpressure in sands is created by two mechanisms – rapid sedimentation and the
transmittance of fluid pressures from highly overpressurized overlain shales to underlain sands across the
large and deep synclines. Extensive and well-connected sandstones (e.g. Balakhany and Fasila reservoirs)
4 SPE-177392-MS

serve as conduits for transmitted fluids (water) and pressures, thus resulting in lateral pressure transfer and
fluid movement – hydrodynamism. Hydrocarbons on the pathway of such fluid movement (hydrodynamic
aquifer) create barriers to the flow and prevents the aquifer reaching crestal areas of the structures and
hence results in pressure differential across the aquifer. Pressure differential, in its turn, causes tilted
hydrocarbon-water contacts.
Hydrodynamic aquifer theory was also used by Tozer and Borthwick (2010) to explain the contact
anomalies in Azeri field, especially in East Azeri Nose Area.
Contact Anomalies in the East Azeri Fasila D
During the early appraisal phase of the Azeri field OWC was found to be approximately 400 m deeper
in the north flank compared to the south flank. To understand the variations in fluid contacts an appraisal
well (AzA-3) with two sidetracks (AzA-3Z and AzA-3Y) were drilled to the eastern part of the structure,
which is referred to as the East Azeri Nose Area (Tozer and Borthwick 2010). Figure 3 shows the OWC
information and location of these wells on 4D seismic amplitude difference map.

Figure 3—Cross-sectional view of AzA-3, AzA-3Z and AzA-3Y wells. Penetrated contact information is presented in the table above.
Wells are placed relative to their elevation. AzA-3Y well penetrated second OWC above AzA-3 where only oil column was expected.
Location of the wells is illustrated on the 4D seismic amplitude difference map. Wells are located in the eastern part of the field which
is referred as East Azeri Nose Area

These wells revealed anomalies both in terms of contacts and aquifer overpressures. Even though
anomalies were observed both in Fasila B and D reservoirs, this paper concentrates mainly on Fasila D,
as the unusual findings in Fasila B have been addressed by Tozer and Borthwick (2010).
Aquifer overpressure values obtained from AzA-3Z and AzA-3Y water legs were not in accordance
(greater) with the simple south to north water potential gradient (lateral pressure gradient) for Fasila D.
SPE-177392-MS 5

In addition, AzA-3Y well, which is structurally higher, penetrated second OWC above AzA-3 where only
oil column was expected (Figure 3). Initially, these unusual contacts and higher aquifer overpressures
were believed to be the indication of compartmentalization. However, as the field stepped onto produc-
tion, pressure decline trends demonstrated good connectivity within the reservoir (Tozer and Borthwick
2010).
As the field was developed further, new wells in the nose of the structure discovered other contact
anomalies as well (Figure 4). AzE-20 (Mar-2013), Fasila B producer, penetrated OWC in Fasila D at a
structurally higher location than AzA-3Y. AzE-21Y (Oct-2013), north flank injector, encountered unex-
pected full oil column in Fasila D, while Fasila B was water wet. In addition to all of these, interpreted
current OWC (Figure 4, blue line) shows abrupt deflection point in the nose of the structure in order to
match contact variations.

Figure 4 —4D seismic amplitude difference map for the East Azeri: 1995-2012. Figure shows the location of AzE-20, AzE-21Y and AzA-3
wells. Green line indicates the original oil-water contact (OOWC). Tilt is clearly observed by comparing the elevation of contacts on the
south and north flanks. Blue line is interpreted as current OWC. In addition to unexpected OWC in AzA-3Y location, AzE-20 revealed
another contact at a structurally elevated location, and AzE-21Y, water injector, encountered unexpected oil column in Fasila D

Proposed Solution
Even though the Azeri field is under the influence of dynamic aquifer and OWCs are tilted because of that,
hydrodynamic nature of the aquifer is not able to explain contact anomalies in nose of the structure only
by itself. If hydrodynamism was the only mechanism acting on the East Azeri Nose Area, it would have
caused smooth tilt over the nose and predictable OWCs.
In order to explain the unexpected OWCs revealed by AzE-20, AzE-21Y and AzA-3 wells, and the
deflection point on interpreted OWC in the nose of the structure it was proposed to test effects of
permeability barriers in hydrodynamic aquifer environment using reservoir simulation. The study was
conducted using a mechanistic model rather than full field model (FFM) of the field for its simplicity and
run time savings.
6 SPE-177392-MS

Similar approaches have been implemented by Dennis et al. (2000) and Muggeridge and Mahmode
(2012) in order to analyze effects of reservoir properties, rate of aquifer flow, faults etc. on the OWCs in
hydrodynamic environments.
Simulation Model
Mechanistic model was built using Nexus® simulation software (Halliburton, Landmark Software &
Services). It has 77⫻55⫻13 grid blocks with the corresponding dimensions of 160m ⫻ 140m ⫻ 5 m.
Model consists of two reservoirs with impermeable layer in between to mimic the Fasila B and D cases
(Figure 5). The shape of the structure and the OWC depth were incorporated into the model in a way that
it could reflect the edge water drive (as it is the case in ACG). Properties of the mechanistic model are
presented in Table 1.

Figure 5—a) General view of the mechanistic model illustrating the structure and the location of injectors and producers; b) cross
section of the model showing two reservoirs and the impermeable layer in between

Table 1—Properties of the mechanistic model

Reservoir 1 Reservoir 2

Thickness, m 40 20
Porosity 0.16 0.16
Permeability in x/y/z, md 10/10/1 10/10/1
Injection/Production wells 7/7 7/7
Injecection/Production rate per well, m3/day 25/25 12.5/12.5
SPE-177392-MS 7

Hydrodynamic aquifer was integrated into the model by using water injectors and producers. Water
was injected using 7 dedicated injectors in both reservoirs to ensure injection control, and similarly 7
dedicated producers were used to maintain the offtake from reservoirs. Injectors and producers were
placed in the opposite flanks of the model. Number of injectors/producers and the amount of injection/
production were determined from sensitivity runs in order to obtain steady state conditions.

Simulation Results
Simulation was run for 1000 years. Figure 6 illustrates the simulation results. It can be seen that
hydrodynamic aquifer pushed the oil zone smoothly towards the north flank and caused the tilt in OWC.

Figure 6 —Simulation results after 1000 year: hydrodynamic aquifer pushed the oil column towards the north flank and caused tilt in
OWC. Purple lines in the top view and the cross section are for comparison purposes in order to visualize how oil column moves across
them with time. Tilt can be observed in the cross section across A-A= line as well
8 SPE-177392-MS

Gas-oil contact (GOC) did not move since there is no pressure variations across gas-oil interface. Contacts
appear to be vertical on the model, which is purely due to large grid block dimensions in x and y directions
compared to z direction. OWCs become flat if correction is made in z direction (Appendix A).
South to north pressure gradient obtained after 1000 year is 53 psi/km. It is comparable with actual data
for Fasila B – 51 psi/km and Fasila D – 63 psi/km (Tozer and Borthwick, 2010).
Introducing permeability barriers into hydrodynamic environment
Smooth tilt in OWC implies that only hydrodynamic aquifer itself would not cause aforementioned
contact anomalies. There should be ⬙another mechanism⬙ in place that would create aforementioned
contact anomalies in combination with hydrodynamic aquifer. Existence of permeability barriers to the
flow was analyzed as an ⬙another mechanism⬙ in this section.
As a first step, only one barrier was introduced into the model in the pathway of hydrodynamic aquifer. Sim-
ulation results showed that different contacts are obtained across the fault in hydrodynamic environment (Figure 7).

Figure 7—Simulation results after 1000 year - one permeability barrier (indicated in black) is placed in the pathway of hydrodynamic
aquifer: different contacts are obtained across the barrier. Purple lines in the top view and the cross section are for comparison
purposes in order to visualize how oil column moves across them with time. Different contacts can be observed in cross section across
A-A= line as well
SPE-177392-MS 9

Obtaining different contacts across the barrier indicated the possibility of explaining contact anomalies
in AzA-3 wells by placing permeability barriers in hydrodynamic environment. A number of scenarios
using various combinations of barriers to the flow were analyzed. As a result of these runs, one of the
barrier configurations was found to be more representative and plausible in terms of explaining contact
anomalies observed in East Azeri nose area. Figure 8 shows the proposed barriers and hydrodynamic
aquifer combination.

Figure 8 —Simulation results after 1000 year – permeability barriers and hydrodynamic aquifer combination that could explain contact
anomalies in East Azeri nose area: different contacts are obtained across the barrier. Purple lines in the top view and the cross section
are for comparison purposes in order to visualize how oil column moves across them with time. Different contacts can be observed
in cross section across A-A= line as well
10 SPE-177392-MS

Proposed combination of barriers and hydrodynamic aquifer could possibly explain the penetration of
oil column in AzE-21Y and existence of second OWC in AzA-3Y. This scenario is also consistent with
AzA-3Z remaining in water leg. AzE-20 remains in oil leg, whereas in reality it encountered OWC. This
case can be matched as well through the production from oil leg, if penetrated OWC is assumed to be
swept.
Application to FFM
Findings from mechanistic model studies were incorporated into the Azeri FFM during History Matching
process. Two parallel faults were imposed into Fasila D layers in the model (Figure 9). As a result better
match of reservoir pressures and fluid contacts were obtained in some wells. It is important to mention
that, in FFM dynamic behavior of the aquifer is mimicked by assigning larger pore volumes to the cells
in the south flank compared to the north flank.

Figure 9 —Application of mechanistic model study’s findings to FFM: a) View of the Fasila D FFM before modifications; b) view of the
Fasila D FFM after modifications (black lines indicate permeability barriers to the flow); c) Comparison of RFT data after modifications
with actual data. Modification of FFM helped to get better match in terms fluid contacts and RFT pressures

Conclusions
Fluid flow from the overpressurized SCB center to the basin margins through extensive and well
connected Fasila layers resulted in hydrodynamic behavior of the aquifer, which in its turn caused tilted
OWCs in Azeri field. In addition, appraisal and development wells in the East Azeri Nose Area, Fasila
SPE-177392-MS 11

D encountered several contact and pressure anomalies, which could not be explained by hydrodynamism
only.
Mechanistic model studies helped to determine the nature of the tilt when hydrodynamic aquifer is the
only mechanism acting on the structure. Smooth tilt was observed as a result of the presence of dynamic
aquifer. Simulation showed that different contacts are observed across the barrier in hydrodynamic
environment and it is possible to explain contact anomalies in the East Azeri Nose Area by determining
plausible configuration.
Findings of the study helped to get better pressure and fluid saturation match when applied to FFM.
Even though proposed scenario helped to get better match, there is still uncertainty having other
mechanisms to be responsible for contact anomalies in the nose area.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank: SOCAR (the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic), BP
Exploration (Caspian Sea) Limited (‘BPCS’) and BPCS’s co-venturers in Azerbaijan International
Operating Company (Chevron Khazar, Ltd., Inpex Southwest Caspian Sea, Ltd., Statoil Apsheron A.S,
Exxon Azerbaijan Limited, TPAO, Itochu Oil Exploration (Azerbaijan) Inc. and ONGC Videsh Ltd.) for
permission to publish this paper.
Authors also express their gratitude to their BP colleagues: Tamilla Ismayilova, Nusrat Guliyev and
Daniel Schafer for their valuable inputs to the study.

References
Anderson, M.P. 2005. Heat as a ground water tracer. Ground Water 43 (6): 951–968
Bredehoeft, J.D., Djevanshir, R.D., and Belitz, K.R. 1988. Lateral fluid flow in a compacting
sand-shale sequence: South Caspian Basin. APPG Bulletin 72 (4): 416 –424.
Dennis, H., Baillie, J., Torleif, H. and Wessel-Berg, D. 2000. Hydrodynamic activity and tilted
oil-water contacts in the North Sea. Norwegian Petroleum Society Special Publications 9 (2000):
171–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0928-8937(00)80016-8
Estrada, C., and Mantilla, C. 2000. Tilted oil water contact in Cretaceous Caballos Formation, Puerto
Colon Field, Putumayo Basin, Colombia. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Conference on
Integrated Modelling for Asset Management, Yokohama, Japan, 25-26 April. SPE-59429-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/59429-MS
Ferrero, M.B., Price, S., and Hognestad, J. 2012. Predicting water in the crest of a giant gas field:
Ormen Lange Hydrodynamic Aquifer Model. Presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference & Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark, 4- June. SPE-153-507-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/153507-MS
Hubbert, M. K. 1953. Entrapment of petroleum under hydrodynamic conditions. AAPG Bulletin 37
(8): 1954 –2026.
Javanshir, R.J., Riley, G.W., Duppenbecker, S.J., and Abdullayev N. 2015. Validation of lateral fluid
flow in an overpressured sand-shale sequence during development of Azer-Chirag-Gunashli oil
field and Shah Deniz gas field: South Caspian Basin, Azerbaijan. Marine and Petroleum Geology
59 (2015): 593–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2014.07.019
Muggeridge, A., and Mahmode, H. 2012. Hydrodynamic aquifer or reservoir compartmentalization?
APPG Bulletin 96 (2): 315–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/06141110169
Tozer, R. S. J., and Borthwick, A. M. 2010. Variation in fluid contacts in the Azeri field, Azerbaijan:
sealing faults or hydrodynamic aquifer? Geological Society, London, Special Publication 347
(2010): 103–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP347.8
12 SPE-177392-MS

Appendix A
OWC Become Flat after Grid Refinement