SPE-171860-MS

Challenges and Lessons Learned from Developing a Thin Super K

Complex Carbonate Oil Reservoir with Gas Cap and Active Water Drive - A
Case Study from the Middle East
Mohamad Yousef Alklih, Saleh A. Bin Sumaidaa, Ashraf Lotfy El Gazar, Jan Knytl,
Muhammad Kamran Ali Khan, and Aida Shafina Abu Baker, Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operations
(ADCO)

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10 –13 November 2014.

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
This paper presents a case study of developing a complex super k thin carbonate reservoir with a thin
upper super permeable layer with a significant volume of oil, a gas cap and an active water drive in Abu
Dhabi-UAE. The field lies in a coastal marine area covering mainland, natural and artificial islands as well
as shallow and deep marine areas. The reservoir lies within a relatively low relief heterogeneous carbonate
structural trap originally deposited within a complex depositional environment, characterized by lateral
and vertical variations in reservoir rock and fluid properties.
Six years of production dynamic data are available from oil producers in addition to well testing and
MDT data. The production is constrained by the presence of a high permeable streak just below the dense
carbonate top seal and bounded by gas cap above and water below. This streak dominates the drainage
of reservoir in such a way that the majority of the wells completed suffer from early apparent gas cusping
and increasing water production.
The reservoir has been penetrated by vertical, deviated and horizontal wellbores. In relation to this,
differences in production performance have been observed, specifically with respect to gas oil ratio and
water cut. During the early development stage, three horizontal holes were drilled, however due to the
difficulties of proper geo-steering of the horizontal hole placement within the thin oil column, two holes
were placed in the gas cap and the third was placed in water. The main challenges of current and future
development plans are the optimization of well design, placement and completion strategy to avoid the gas
cap and transition zone.
This paper discusses the lessons learned from the ongoing development of the mentioned reservoir and
the way forward for the future development phases.

Introduction and Background

The reservoir under development is a heterogeneous shallow dip carbonate ramp reservoir and considered
to be oil bearing with gas cap and bottom water. The reservoir extends throughout a field that lies in a
mixed coastal marine area covering land, sabkha, natural and artificial islands as well as shallow and
2 SPE-171860-MS

Figure 1—Field surface map.

slightly deep marine water (Fig. 1). The field is NE-SW elongated low relief gently dipping anticline with
less than 0.5 degree at the crestal area.
The reservoir rock properties show low to very good porosity and very low to very high permeability
(0.01-4000 mD) with southwards deterioration in the reservoir development due to diagenesis during the
southwest tilt post hydrocarbon entrapment, as well as downward reduction due to systematic facies
change. Additionally, the reservoir is subdivided into three subzones, namely XI, XII and XIII, based on
two wells established stylolites. Among the three subzones, subzone XII is considered to be the best
petrophysical reservoir quality, mainly consists of wackestone, packstone and grainstone and character-
ized by having good porosity and high permeable streak (Super K). Subzone XI is a very tight interval
which mainly consists of mudstone and wackestone while subzone XIII mainly consists of wackestones.
Based on core description, five main lithofacies could be recognized as depicted in Fig. 2. From top to
bottom, fine grained Orbitolina wackestone /lime mudstone (LM/W), skeletal peloidal grainstone (G1),
Algal skeletal packstone floatstone (P), algal lump, skeletal peloidal packstone /grainstone (G2) and
skeletal peloidal packstone/wackestone. The LM/W facies cover subzone XI, while subzone XII com-
posed of three facies as follows: G1, P and G2. The G1 facies lies at the top of subzone XII and exhibits
the best permeability values. The facies shows lateral variation in the permeability due to the lateral
changes in the grains size distribution within the zone. The P facies has the same developed porosity but
with less permeability. The lower part of subzone XII composed of the G2 facies which has the same
porosity but with less permeability compared to the G1 facies at the top of Subzone CII. Ultimately, WP
facies covers subzone XIII. The good quality rock exhibit a high permeable streak at the upper section of
subzone XII showing a permeability range of 100 mD to 4000 mD.
The thin oil column is bounded by an overlaying thin gas cap and underlying bottom water. The oil
column thickness is affected by the lateral and vertical variation of the reservoir fluid properties.
Generally, subzone XII is the hydrocarbon bearing while subzone XIII is water bearing. The bubble point
pressure has lower values at the flank and increase to its maximum at to the crest which could be related
to compositional variation across the reservoir and a possibility of reservoir compartmentalization.
The reservoir development strategy comprised of three successive phases that had actually followed an
early production scheme. The gathered data from the scheme and the phases was utilized to optimize the
design of the next phase. In other words, each phase should honor the gathered static and dynamic data
SPE-171860-MS 3

Figure 2—Zone X sub-zones lithofacies compared with poro-perm data.

from each completed phase in designing the next phase. This would help overview the lessons learned
from each phase and reduce uncertainties whether they were reservoir or operations related.
In this study, the challenges and lessons learned from the ongoing development of the mentioned
reservoir and the way forward for the future development phases are discussed.

Early Production Scheme

Starting in 1994 and prior to Phase I development plan implementation, the early production scheme
(EPS) in the field began with the drilling of 45strings which penetrated the subject reservoir and included
11 cores and 9 rig onsite tests included 2 long production tests of which two were long production tests
in two separate wells. The major objective of the coring and testing was the gathering of the required static
and dynamic data to better understand the reservoir. The data gathered from logging, coring and testing
during the early production scheme had also helped in investigating different development scenarios.
Other objectives of the early production scheme can be mentioned as follows:
y Understanding of reservoir productivity, presence of gas cap and fluids contact depth.
y Investigation of the distribution of structure, thickness, porosity, permeability, digenetic trends and
the preliminary analysis of reservoir development trend across the field.
y Better understanding of the lateral and vertical variations in reservoir rock and fluid properties.
y Evaluation of optimum well completion strategies to enhance productivity and injectivity.
y Evaluation of open horizontal hole completion strategy in reducing gas cusping and water conning.
y Evaluation of the presence of faults/ sub-seismic faults and fractures with regard to any sub-seismic
faults that might be intersecting with any of the drilled horizontal holes.
Production testing of wells in the early production scheme of the reservoir had proven high productivity.
Early production tests results are given in Fig. 3. Some of the main outcomes and identified uncertainties
of the early production scheme showed the following:
4 SPE-171860-MS

Figure 3—Zone X appraisal tests.

y Confirmed the presence of gas cap at the crestal area underlain by a thin oil column (10 to 20 ft
thickness). The reservoir is bounded by gas cap and active water aquifer.
y Confirmed the presence of a high permeable streak (up to 4 D) at the upper section of subzone XII
which is the main productive zone.
y The high permeable streak of subzone XII dominates the drainage of reservoir. This introduced
another challenge on the next phase producers since it would lead to early gas cusping and water
production.
y Confirmed high productivity of the reservoir. However, different wells, even neighboring wells by
location, had shown different production performance in terms of water cut and GOR, uncertainty
in predicting the well performance of future development wells and thus the design of surface
facilities gas handling capacity.
y There exists considerable lateral and vertical variation in reservoir fluid properties including
different API oil gravity in different wells; which might be attributed to reservoir fluid composi-
tional variation across the reservoir.
y Deviated hole completion technique would be advisable to better manage wells that might be
affected by gas cusping and/or water coning. However, this put a challenge on the drilling aspect
of these kinds of completions since the target reservoir zone is thin and proper geosteering would
be very essential.
y Interpreted sub-seismic faults do not intersect with any of the drilled horizontal holes.
y Possibility of reservoir compartmentalization as observed from the variation of reservoir fluid
contacts depths among the different wells; probably due to fault or stratigraphic shoaling barriers.
Potential shoaling is visible on the seismic and makes the tie horizon picking more challenging at
this level.
Phase I Development
Following the successful early production scheme results, Phase I development of the high productivity
reservoir was planned and implemented. Phase I development drilling commenced in mid-2002 imple-
SPE-171860-MS 5

Figure 4 —Water Channel is observed from bottom of perforation down to OWC. Cement Quality over the perforation interval is average (AI average
<4 Mray and CBL 10-20 mV). Cement is 16.71 ppg with 99 bbl.

menting a comprehensive data gathering program to reduce uncertainties related to structure, reservoir
quality, extension of the oil pools and variation of reservoir fluid properties and fluid contacts. Addi-
tionally, Phase I development followed several guidelines as follows:
y Depend on the natural energy present in the reservoir for production i.e. follows a natural depletion
scheme. Additionally, the reservoir is considered to be under active water drive. The presence of
the high permeability streak within subzone XII and the water bearing subzone XIII was expected
to allow the existing water aquifer to provide pressure support; therefore reduction in reservoir
pressure was expected to be minimal.
y Sustain the approved production target volumes from the planned wells. The wells were drilled
from the well’s clustering system, to minimize drilling and construction environmental foot prints,
and are completed either as highly deviated or as horizontal hole.
y Findings of the dynamic data gathering of Phase I development would formulate the optimum
future development plan of the entire field.
Seven development oil producers were drilled as part of Phase I development plan to deliver a certain
mandated rate under natural depletion and gather the necessary dynamic data. Phase I development had
been facing several challenges from well level to reservoir level. These include variations in wells
performance, confirmation of reservoir drive mechanism, determination of fluid contacts and possibility
of reservoir compartmentalization as discussed below.
Variations in Wells Performance
There exist seven development production strings contributing to the production from the mentioned
reservoir. The first three wells were drilled based on the early production scheme findings assuming a gas
oil contact (GOC) of x080 ftss and an oil water contact (OWC) of x160 ftss. Due to the thin oil column
with overlaying gas cap and underlying bottom water (which imposes difficulties in proper well
geosteering) and wells’ depth uncertainty of ⫹/⫺ 10 to 20 ft, the three horizontal wells were horizon-
talized either below OWC or above GOC. Those wells were then considered for workover to other
6 SPE-171860-MS

Figure 5—Zone X historical production performance.

reservoirs and were replaced by other wells to produce from the mentioned reservoir at its mandated rate.
The impact of the misplacement of wells was to revisit the completion strategy of the other planned wells.
Well completion strategy was changed from open hole horizontal to cased hole slanted and perforated
technique; in order to minimize depth uncertainties and to provide a more detailed fluid identification. Still
this option had forced a challenge on the selection of the perforation interval since the perforations would
be always controlled by the thin oil column thickness. Accordingly, high water cut and GOR were
experienced from the other completed producers. To confirm this, additional cement evaluation was
carried out to make sure that the high water cut and GOR were not related to well integrity issues.
Generally speaking, all wells showed an average cement quality over the perforation interval (AI average
⬍ 4 Mray and CBL 10-20 mV). An example of an interpreted cement bond logs done on one of the wells
is explained in Fig. 4.
Reservoir Pressure Behavior/ Reservoir Drive Mechanism
Production strategy was set to produce from the completed wells under natural depletion with the purpose
of data gathering to better understand the reservoir pressure and rate performance and therefore formulate
an optimum development plan. The decision was supported by the belief of having an active water drive
based on several indications as discussed in the following subsections. However, it is still considered to
be an early stage to see how strong/weak the water flux is.
Increasing water cuts The zonal historical production performance is shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen
that the production from the zone experiences high GOR values and increasing water cuts and these has
been observed since the commissioning of production. As a well was tied into the field, zonal production
increased. However, this trend continued until some of these wells started being problematic either by
increased water cut or high GOR. Moreover, limited surface gas handling capacity put a huge restriction
on producing continuously from problematic wells and therefore these some of these problematic wells
were put on intermittent production strategy.
Drop in reservoir pressure Comparison of the pressure history of the reservoir with the cumulative
production implies good pressure support by the gas cap as well as bottom water. During 9 years of
production, the pressure data indicates a ~250 psi drop with relatively large volumes of cumulative
production; material balance also confirms the presence of the active water drive. Average reservoir
SPE-171860-MS 7

Figure 6 —PBU model of well #5.

pressure at the datum was periodically attained during the past years of production via reservoir pressure
monitoring activities such as pressure surveys including for instances Bottom Hole Closed-in Pressure
tests (BHCIP) and Pressure Build-up transient tests (PBU).
Pressure transient test analysis From its inception, pressure transient test analysis (log-log pressure
derivative plot) has played a fundamental role in reservoir model diagnosis. Specifically speaking, the
analysis of the late time well test data which are influenced by outer reservoir boundaries is crucial in
terms of estimating drainage area and distance to boundary. It also indicates the existence of any reservoir
pressure support by showing either a constant pressure or closed boundary behavior. Generally, the PBU
transient behavior shows a constant pressure boundary at the late time region in all the PBU data attained
from the wells as indicated in Fig. 6.
Determination of Fluids Contacts
Establishing a solid confidence on the correct depth of fluid contacts in the mentioned reservoir has always
been a challenge. Complexity of the structure framework, depth uncertainties as well as the tightness of
the reservoir properties near the base had a significant influence in determining the fluid contacts
particularly during the interpretation of fluid gradients from MDT. Therefore, correlation between the
Elan logs, MDT analyses and production tests were needed to build up a better understanding about the
fluid contacts and therefore achieving proper well placement and completion.
Determination of GOC Log interpretation of some of the wells combined with test results showed a
possible GOC at x080 ftss. However, ELAN logs in the other wells showed a possible GOC at x090 ftss.
Depth uncertainty in the GOC may be in the range of ⫹/⫺ 10 ft.
Determination of OWC and FWL Generally, log interpretation, test results and MDTs showed a vari-
able OWC/FWL at about x110 ftss, x120 ftss and x130 ftss. The variation in the OWC/FWL can be related
to following reasons:
y Logging depth uncertainties.
y Undulated structure surface.
y Tilting of structure and presence of faults.
y Variation in capillary pressure.
8 SPE-171860-MS

y Separate closures.
Possibility of Compartmentalization
Compartmentalization occurs when a producing interval is not in fluid communication with the remainder
of the field or zone. Compartmentalization may develop during the time of deposition or become isolated
through structural changes like faulting or by lateral variation in the reservoir properties (tightness or
diagenesis) or pinch-out. The possibility of compartmentalization in our reservoir arise from several
characteristics such as the lateral change in reservoir rock properties, presence of large faults, lateral
variation in wells production and mainly due to the abrupt changes in the GOC and OWC/ FWL. One
challenge that is imbedded with this concept is building up its simulation model. During simulation model
initialization stage and to be able to relate the differing FWL to the geological model, the FWL inferred
from the saturation matching needed to be compared to the FWL inferred from MDT data and the GOR
and water cut data from the tested intervals. Simulation of this compartmentalized reservoir will be
explained further in details in a separate paper.
Conclusions and Way Forward
This paper aimed to review the challenges faced during the development phase of a thin oil column within
a carbonate reservoir from the Middle East. The findings of this review can be summarized as follows:
y Thin reservoir is characterized by ⬍30 ft thickness and its development is challenged by perme-
ability anisotropy, thin oil column and proper well placement.
y Depth uncertainties of GOC and OWC add another hurdle on proper production performance of the
wells drilled in the thin reservoir.
y Good pressure support from the gas cap and the bottom water are envisaged based on the notice of
small decline in the reservoir pressure in comparison to production.
y Slanted perforated completion can be a better solution compared to horizontal holes in thin
reservoir with super K in order to minimize depth uncertainties and reduce the impact of
mis-geosteering.
y Elan log interpretation combined with MDT pressure data as well as production tests analysis need
to be integrated in order to have a solid understanding of the different reservoir fluid contacts.
y Material balance calculations are advised to be integrated with pressure analyses and production
tests in order to confirm how active the water drive is.
y Future data gathering should focus on resolving depth uncertainties problems. Way forward is
required to be set to optimize well locations and completion design.

Nomenclature
PBU – Pressure Build Up
BHCIP – Bottom Hole Closed-In Pressure
EPS – Early Production Scheme
GOC – Gas Oil Contact, ft
GOR – Gas Oil Ratio, scf/stb
FWL – Free Water Level, ft
OWC – Oil Water Contact, ft

Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) and Abu Dhabi Company for
Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO) for their kind permission to use their data to be able to publish and
present the above field case study.