Simultaneous Production of Gas Cap and
Oil Column With Water Injection at
the Gas/Oil Contact
T.C. Billiter, SPE, A.K. Dandona, SPE, Texaco E&P Technology Dept.
Summary
The conventional way to produce an oil reservoir that has a gas
cap is to produce only from the oil column while keeping the gas
cap in place so that it can expand to provide pressure support.
Depending upon the geometry, reservoir dip angle, and oil pro-
duction rates, gas can either cone down to the oil producers or
breakthrough as a front, leading to substantial increases in the
gas-oil ratios of the oil producers. This paper presents a unique
production methodology of simultaneously producing the gas cap
and oil column while injecting water at the gas-oil contact to
create a water barrier to separate the gas cap and oil column. This
methodology has application in reservoirs with a low-dip angle,
large gas cap, and a low residual gas saturation to water. It is
demonstrated that the net present value of the project is improved
if there is an immediate market for gas. Geostatistical reservoir
models are used to demonstrate that the gas cap recovery is mini-
mally impacted by heterogeneities.
Introduction of the Concept
The conventional way to produce an oil reservoir that has a gas
cap is to produce the oil column while minimizing production
from the gas cap. During the pressure depletion of the reservoir,
the gas cap will expand to provide pressure or energy support.
After the oil column is depleted, the gas cap is ‘‘blown down.’’
In developing a production strategy for an oil reservoir with a
large gas cap, a low-dip angle, and an available gas market, si-
multaneous waterflooding of the gas cap and oil column was
evaluated. The water is injected at the gas-oil contact at rates high
enough to overcome gravity effects and thus, the water displaces
the gas up dip. In addition to providing pressure support, the cre-
ated water wall separates the gas cap and the oil column regions.
Since the development plan calls for the use of electrical submers-
ible pumps 共ESPs兲 in the oil producing wells, it is imperative to
keep the gas production volumes from these oil wells at low levels
so the ESPs will operate smoothly. As such, it is critical to control
the downward migration of the gas cap. To maintain the reservoir
pressure, water is injected not only at the gas-oil contact but also
around the downdip periphery of the oil column to support the oil
withdrawal rates.
A simplistic representation of the simulated structure is shown
in Fig. 1. This figure shows the location of the gas-oil contact,
along with the location of the water injector at the gas-oil contact
and of the gas cap producer. The reservoir considered in this study
has a dip angle of 2°. For the purposes of illustration the dip angle
has been exaggerated in Fig. 1. The horizontal distance between
the injector and producer is 12,155 feet. The structural elevation
difference between these two wells is 425 feet. Taking into ac-
count the density difference between the water and gas, the in-
jected water must overcome a gravity component of 149 psi in
addition to the energy required for the water to displace the gas.
Copyright © 1999 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 57640) was revised for publication from paper SPE 48872, first presented
at the 1998 SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing,
2–6 November. Original manuscript received for review 16 February 1999. Revised manu-
script received 17 May 1999. Paper peer approved 26 May 1999.
412 SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng. 2 共5兲, October 1999
The possibility of injecting water at high enough rates to over-
come both the gravity and displacement components is shown in
this paper.
The main objective of this paper is to present the concept of
simultaneously producing the gas cap and oil column while inject-
ing water at the gas-oil contact. The application of this concept for
a newly discovered, offshore oil field has been studied. In this
study, the majority of the effort was dedicated to theoretically
proving this concept, as opposed to optimizing the number of
wells and placement of wells to increase the recovery factors for
oil and gas. This production methodology should be applicable to
other reservoirs with similar characteristics.
Partial Proof of Concept
A literature survey indicated that the simultaneous production of
the gas cap and oil column while injecting water at the gas-oil
contact, has never been documented. However, four case histories
were found in which water was injected at the gas-oil contact for
the sole purpose of preventing the migration of the gas cap down
structure. By preventing this migration, increased oil recoveries
were realized. In these four cases, the gas cap was not produced
during the depletion of the oil column.
One successful application of this production methodology was
to the Adena field in the Denver basin in 1965.1 By injecting
water at the gas-oil contact, the operator was able to keep the
producing gas-oil ratio value close to the solution gas-oil ratio
value for an extended time. The ultimate oil recovery was esti-
mated to be 47% of the original oil in place.
The methodology of injecting water at the gas-oil contact was
also applied in seven of the oil reservoirs of the Algyo Field in
Hungary.2 These seven reservoirs are thin oil edge zones with
large gas caps. The operators of this field were able to increase oil
recovery by over 10% of original oil in place by using this meth-
odology.
In the Canadian oil field Kaybob South, the injection of water
at the gas-oil contact was studied by Deboni and Field.3 They
used numerical simulation to determine that a waterflood can be
successfully implemented adjacent to a gas cap if a proper water
‘‘fence’’ is established between the gas cap and oil column. The
authors concluded that an additional 10% of the oil in place can be
recovered.
Ader et al.4 describe the case history for the Badri Field located
in the Gulf of Suez, offshore Egypt. The Kareem reservoir has a
Fig. 1–Simplistic representation of simulated structure.
1094-6470/99/2共5兲/412/8/$3.50⫹0.15

Fig. 2–Simulation grid/structure showing gas saturation at time
equal to zero.
gas cap/oil column pore volume ratio of 1.09. During the first two
years of production from the oil column, the GOR increased from
600 to 10,000 scf/STB. To improve oil recovery by preventing the
migration of the gas cap down structure, water was injected at the
gas-oil contact using four vertical wells starting in May 1995.
Although the field has been produced ten years before the instal-
lation of this water injection program, it is estimated an additional
9.4 million STB or 3.6% of the original oil in place will be recov-
ered.
From the above-mentioned studies, it is observed that this pro-
duction methodology works best in reservoirs where the gas cap
does not overlie the entire oil column. In such reservoirs, the
surface area of the gas-oil contact is minimal, permitting for the
injection of the water at high enough rates to separate the gas cap
and oil column. On the other hand, this production methodology
will not work in anticlinal structures where the gas cap overlies
the entire oil column. In such a structure the surface area of the
gas-oil contact is large and isolation of the gas cap is difficult.
The literature review has thus provided partial proof of con-
cept; at least four reservoirs around the world have been success-
fully produced by injecting water at the gas-oil contact while pro-
ducing the oil column and containing the gas cap in place. In this
paper, this production methodology is taken one step further by
simultaneously producing the gas cap and oil column while inject-
ing water at the gas-oil contact.
Model Description
The concept of simultaneously producing the gas cap and oil col-
umn was tested using a three-phase, black-oil, finite-difference
simulator. A uniform areal grid of 40 by 40 was superimposed on
the reservoir structure. The reservoir has a uniform thickness of
60 feet and was divided into four, 15 feet layers. The simulation
model contains 6400 cells 共40 by 40 by 4兲. The cell size is 1100 ft
by 1400 ft by 15 ft. Using a large, coarse cell size provided the
option of making a large number of simulation runs.
The grid imposed on the structure map is shown in Fig. 2. The
gas cap is represented by the black region; the oil column is rep-
resented by the light gray region. The reservoir is not supported
by an aquifer. The dip in the gas cap is approximately 2°. The
horizontal distance between the injector at the gas-oil contact and
the gas cap producer is approximately 12,155 feet. The length and
TABLE 1– PORE VOLUMES AND FLUIDS IN PLACE
Oil Pore Volume 1,709,030 M res bbl
Gas Pore Volume 346,933 M res bbl
Total Pore Volume 2,055,963 M res bbl
Oil in Place 1,487,107 MSTB
Volume of Gas Cap 519,022 MMscf
(Free Gas in Place)
Solution Gas in Place 654,310 MMscf
Total Gas in Place 1,173,332 MMscf
T.C. Billiter and A.K. Dandona: Production of Gas Cap and Oil Column
TABLE 2– INPUT DATA FOR BASE CASE,
HOMOGENEOUS FINITE-DIFFERENCE SIMULATION
Horizontal Reservoir Permeability, md 2500
Ratio of Vertical to Horizontal Permeability 0.1
Porosity, % 20
Irreducible Water Saturation, % 30
Residual Oil Saturation to Water, % 24
Residual (or Trapped) Gas Saturation to Water, % 24
Oil Viscosity at the Bubblepoint Pressure, cp 8
Initial Reservoir Pressure at the Gas-Oil Contact, 3605
psia
Bubblepoint Pressure, psia 3605
Reservoir Temperature, °F 110
Water Viscosity, cp 0.70
Gas Viscosity at the Bubblepoint Pressure, cp 0.02
Gas Specific Gravity 0.65
Solution Gas-Oil Ratio at the Bubblepoint 440
Pressure, scf/STB
Formation Volume Factor at the Bubblepoint 1.15
Pressure, RB/STB
width of the oil column are approximately 4 and 6 miles, respec-
tively. The pore volumes and volumes of fluid in place are re-
ported in Table 1. The gas cap pore volume to oil pore volume
ratio is 0.20. This reservoir contains 1,487 MMSTB of oil, 654
Bscf of solution gas, and 519 Bscf of gas cap gas.
The pertinent reservoir properties are listed in Table 2. The
residual oil saturation to water is 24% and was based on analogies
from similar reservoirs. The residual gas saturation to water is
also 24% and was obtained from the literature.5,6 Corey-type cor-
relations were utilized to generate the relative permeability
curves.
When the concept of simultaneously producing the gas cap and
oil column was utilized, the reservoir was produced using four oil
producers located in the center of the oil column 共OPNSGC,
OPEWT, OPNS, OPEWB兲, three water injectors located at the
boundary of the field 共WIEWB, WIEWT, WINS兲, one water in-
jector at the gas-oil contact 共WIGC兲, and one gas producer located
in the gas cap 共GP1兲 共Fig. 2兲. All of these are horizontal wells,
with laterals between 4400 and 6000 feet in length. The oil pro-
ducers are all completed in model layer 2 and the gas producer is
completed in model layer 1. The water injectors are completed in
model layer 2. The wellbore orientation is shown in Fig. 3. The
water injectors are oriented in such a way as to create a water ring
around the oil column. The water injector at the gas-oil contact
follows the gas-oil contact and is long enough 共6000 feet兲 to ad-
equately separate the gas and oil column with a water fence. The
pressure sinks created by producing the gas cap well and the oil
well that offsets the gas-oil contact 共OPNSGC兲, will assist in cre-
ating a water wall between the gas and oil by drawing the water
both ways.
Fig. 3–Wellbore orientation.
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1999 413
 TABLE 3– PERFORMANCE SUMMARY AFTER 25 YEARS OF PRODUCTION

Water Water
Oil Gas Gas cap Cum Water Inj/ Inj/
Rec Rec Rec Produced Cum Water Inj HC Pore Oil Pore
Scenario (%) (%) (%) (MMSTB) (MMSTB) Volume Volume

Depletion 11.2 66.6 - - 0 0.00 0.00

Conventional 28.3 23.9 - 1,838 2,393 - 1.40
Gas Cap 30.6 22.6 0.0 1,945 2,548 - 1.49
Containment
Sumultaneous 30.4 40.3 54.7 1,989 2,717 1.32 -
Production

To maintain full reservoir pressure, a reservoir barrel of water
was injected for each reservoir barrel of fluid produced. The maxi-
mum withdrawal rate for three of the oil producers 共OPEWB,
OPEWT, OPNS兲 is 80,000 RB/D/well. The maximum injection
rate for three of the water injectors 共WIEWB, WIEWT, WINS兲
offsetting these oil producers is also 80,000 RB/D/well. The maxi-
mum injection rate for the water injector 共WIGC兲 at the gas-oil
contact also is 80,000 RB/D. This well must inject enough water
to support both the gas cap producer 共GP1兲 and the oil producer
nearest the gas-oil contact 共OPNSGC兲. Thus, these two wells pro-
duce at the lower rate of 40,000 RB/D/well. For the gas cap pro-
ducer, the 40,000 RB/D equates to approximately 60 MMscf/D.
The watercut limit for the gas cap producer is 20% and the wa-
tercut limit for the oil producers is 95%.
The above-mentioned rates are feasible based on Texaco’s ex-
perience in developing the Captain Field in the North Sea. The
Captain Field and the field under consideration for development
are both unconsolidated sands with similar productivity indices.
When the concept of simultaneously producing the gas cap and oil
column is applied to lower productivity fields, a higher number of
producers and injectors will be required.
Homogeneous Model
Scenario Description. The following production scenarios were
simulated for 25 years using the homogeneous simulation model:
1. Depletion Scenario: The oil column is produced through the
four oil producers and no water is injected. The gas cap is not
produced, but expands to provide pressure support for the oil col-
umn.
2. Conventional Scenario: The oil column is produced through
the four oil producers while water is injected in the three periph-
eral water injectors 共WIEWB, WIEWT, WINS兲, but not at the
gas-oil contact. The gas cap expands to provide pressure support
to the oil column.
3. Gas Cap Containment Scenario: The oil column is produced
through the four oil producers while water is injected in all four
water injectors, including at the gas-oil contact. The gas cap is not
produced but is kept from expanding downward by a water wall
created by injecting water at the gas-oil contact.
4. Simultaneous Production Scenario: The oil column is pro-
duced through the four oil producers while water is injected in all
four water injectors, including at the gas-oil contact. The gas cap
is produced through the gas cap producer 共GP1兲 simultaneously as
the oil column is depleted. The water injector at the gas-oil con-
tact 共WIGC兲 provides pressure support for both the gas cap and
oil column.
Fig. 4 shows the oil recovery versus time for each of the ho-
mogeneous production scenarios. The oil recovery for the deple-
tion scenario after 25 years of production is 11.2% of the original
oil in place. This scenario was run to establish the base oil recov-
ery for comparison purposes. The oil recovery for the conven-
tional scenario is 28.3%. This scenario shows that injecting water
everywhere except at the gas-oil contact dramatically increases
the oil recovery factor by providing needed pressure support. The
oil recovery for the gas cap containment scenario is 30.6%. Com-
paring the oil recovery results for the conventional and gas cap
containment scenarios shows that containing the gas cap through
injecting water at the gas-oil contact, increases the oil recovery by
2.3% of original oil in place for the homogeneous system studied.
This increase is somewhat smaller than the oil recovery increase
of original oil in place reported in the literature 共4–10%兲, perhaps
because of the lack of heterogeneity.
The oil recovery for the simultaneous production scenario is
30.4%. This recovery is not significantly different than the 30.6%
computed for the gas cap containment scenario. Comparing the oil
recovery results for the gas cap containment and simultaneous
production scenarios indicates that the simultaneous production of
the gas cap and oil column will not be detrimental to the total field
oil recovery. Please note from Fig. 4 that the rate of oil recovery
for these two scenarios is virtually identical as indicated by the
curves overlying each other.
Also reported in Table 3 is the gas recovery for each of the
simulated scenarios. The gas recovery column of Table 3 includes
both the produced gas cap gas and solution gas, whereas the gas
cap recovery column includes only the produced gas cap gas. The
gas recovery varies from 22.6% for the gas cap containment sce-
nario to 66.6% for the depletion scenario. For the depletion sce-
nario, the reservoir abandonment is assumed to be 1000 psia. For
the simultaneous production case, the gas cap recovery is 54.7%
of the initial gas cap gas in place. Gas from the gas cap was
produced in the depletion and conventional production scenarios;

Comparison of Results. The performance summary after 25

years of production for each of the simulated scenarios is reported
in Table 3. Please note that the hydrocarbon recoveries in Table 3
are for 25 years of production, and are not the ultimate recoveries Fig. 4–Oil recovery vs. time for the different production sce-
that could be realized. narios.

414 T.C. Billiter and A.K. Dandona: Production of Gas Cap and Oil Column SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1999
however, no attempt was made to compute the percentage of the
total gas production attributable to the gas cap gas.
The cumulative water produced results show that there is little
variation between the amount of water produced among the cases
in which water is injected. Also reported in Table 3 is the cumu-
lative water injected. For the conventional and gas cap contain-
ment scenarios, the gas cap is not waterflooded and thus, the ratio
of cumulative water injected to oil pore volume is tabulated. For
the simultaneous production scenario, the gas cap is waterflooded
and thus, the ratio of cumulative water injected to hydrocarbon
共HC兲 pore volume is reported. In all scenarios where water is
injected, the amount of injected water does not substantially ex-
ceed one hydrocarbon pore volume.
A comparative analysis of these four scenarios indicates that
the simultaneous production of oil and gas is the most viable
production option because it increases early cashflow through ac-
celerated gas sales if a ready gas market exists. The magnitude of
the increase in net present value is, of course, highly dependent on
the assumed gas price forecast and discount rate. The comparative
analysis included only production from the 25 year period and did
not take into account the value of hydrocarbons remaining in the
reservoir at the end of 25 years. However, producing the hydro-
carbons remaining in the reservoir after the 25 year period 共for
example, blowing down the gas cap in the gas cap containment
scenario兲 adds marginal net present value.
There are two main reasons why the increase in net present
value is only marginal. First, the gas recovered from blowing
down the gas cap at the end of year 25 for the conventional sce-
nario or the gas cap containment scenario is not significantly
greater than the amount of gas recovered from the gas cap during
the simultaneous production scenario during the initial 25 years of
production. For example, blowing down the gas cap of the gas cap
containment scenario after the initial 25 year production period
recovers 60.4% of the gas cap gas. This is only slightly higher
than the 54.7% gas cap recovery of the simultaneous production
scenario. The difference in gas cap recovery is small because in
both scenarios, gas is being trapped by the water as the gas cap is
Fig. 5–Cross-sectional view of gas cap showing water displac-
ing gas.
T.C. Billiter and A.K. Dandona: Production of Gas Cap and Oil Column
Fig. 6–Gas cap recovery vs. time for different residual gas
saturation to water values.
being produced. For the gas cap containment scenario with blow-
down, the gas is being trapped at an average lower pressure. Sec-
ond, the increase in net present value is marginal, because the gas
production stream from blowing down the gas cap at the end of
year 25 adds very little incremental value when discounted at a
business interest rate.
The rest of this paper focuses on results obtained using the
simultaneous production scenario.
Simultaneous Production Scenario Results. For the simulta-
neous production scenario, the water injected at the gas-oil contact
isolates the gas cap from the oil column, and moves as a vertical
wall up dip providing a very efficient, piston-like displacement of
the gas. This is intuitively what one would expect since the water
to gas viscosity ratio is 35. Fig. 5 shows the vertical cross section
of the area between the gas cap producer and the water injector at
the gas-oil contact. In the figure, dark blue represents the highest
possible water saturation, red represents the highest possible gas
saturation, and light green represents the highest possible oil satu-
ration. The four pictures in Fig. 5 show the progression of the
gas-water interface at 1, 4, 9, and 12 years. Although a small
tongue of water in the lower layers precedes the front, the front
for the most part is vertical. The residual gas saturation to water
was assumed to be 24% in this simulation run. This trapped gas
saturation is represented by the blue blocks behind the gas-water
interface.
For water injection to successfully separate the gas cap and oil
column, it should be injected at a velocity high enough to over-
come the hydrostatic head gradient imposed by gravity and the
displacement gradient. The average pressure gradient is a summa-
tion of the displacement pressure gradient and the hydrostatic
head gradient. This gradient will change during the life of the
Fig. 7–Probability density function of permeability.
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1999 415
 TABLE 4– VARIOGRAM INFORMATION
Layered Sand/Shale
Major Correlation Length
Minor Correlation Length
Vertical Correlation Length
The Areal Correlation Length Ratio
The Vertical Correlation Length Ratio
Azimuth Degree
Variogram Model
waterflood because the moving water front will cause the hydro-
static head gradient to increase. A simple mathematical explana-
tion follows.
Fig. 1 is a simplistic representation of the simulated reservoir.
The horizontal distance between the gas cap producer and water
injector at the gas-oil contact is 12,155 feet. The reservoir dip in
the gas cap region is 2°. The structural elevation difference be-
tween these two wells is 425 feet. At the start of water injection,
the water will have to overcome both a pressure gradient due to
the hydrostatic head of the gas and a pressure gradient due to the
water having to displace the gas. The hydrostatic head gradient
imposed by the gas gradient is equal to 0.003 psi/ft
((425 ft⫻0.08 psi/ft)/12,155 ft). The pressure gradient due to the
hydrostatic head will change as the waterflood advances up dip.
When the water front reaches the gas cap producer, the water will
have to overcome a hydrostatic pressure gradient of 0.015 psi/ft
((425⫻0.43 psi/ft)/12,155 ft) in addition to the pressure gradient
required for the water to displace the gas. The pressure gradient
required for the water to displace the gas should remain constant
throughout the advancement of the front.
The pressure gradients for the simultaneous production sce-
nario run were analyzed. The average pressure gradient between
the gas cap producer 共GP1兲 and water injector at the gas-oil con-
tact 共WIGC兲 is 0.021 psi/ft. For comparison, the average pressure
gradient between one of the peripheral water injectors 共WIEWB兲
and one of the central oil producers 共OPEWB兲 is 0.142 psi/ft. The
gradient required for water displacing oil is much higher than the
gradient for water displacing gas.
On the oil side of the gas-oil contact, the average pressure
gradient between the water injector at the gas-oil contact 共WIGC兲
and the offsetting oil producer 共OPNSGC兲 is 0.079 psi/ft. For the
gas cap containment case, the average pressure gradient between
Fig. 8–Spatial permeability distribution for layered sand/shale model and variable sand/shale model.
416 T.C. Billiter and A.K. Dandona: Production of Gas Cap and Oil Column
Variable Sand/Shale
Model Model
10,000 ft 2,000 ft
10,000 ft 2,000 ft
13 ft 50 ft
1.0 1.0
800.0 40.0
0.0 0.0
0.2 Fractal 0.2 Fractal
the water injector at the gas-oil contact and the offsetting oil pro-
ducer is 0.086 psi/ft. The minimal difference in this gradient be-
tween these two production scenarios indicates that the production
of the gas cap does not significantly disrupt the displacement of
oil by water on the oil side of the gas-oil contact.
In the simultaneous production scenario, the production from
the gas cap producer is 60 MMSCF/D for the first 12 years of the
project. The gas production is water free up until the time the
waterfront reaches the well. In the simulation model, the gas cap
producer is set to shutoff when the water cut exceeds 20%. For the
homogeneous model the watercut exceeds 20% in year 12. Be-
cause of the piston-like displacement, the after breakthrough gas
production is negligible.
Since the oil-recovery-time curve is basically the same for both
the gas cap containment and the simultaneous production sce-
narios 共Fig. 4兲, the economics of the simultaneous production sce-
nario depend on the tradeoff between the accelerated cashflow
from early sales and the reduced cashflow from lower gas recov-
ery due to some of the gas being trapped by the advancing water-
front. This immediate sale of gas can improve the net present
value of a project significantly. For the reservoir studied, the dif-
ference in net present value between the simultaneous production
methodology and the conventional production methodology, in-
cluding blowing down the reservoir at the end of 25 years, is $100
million, a 25% increase.
The residual or trapped gas saturation to water is one of the
main variables in determining the economical feasibility of simul-
taneously producing the gas cap and oil column. The ideal choice
is to measure this parameter in the laboratory on a fresh core
sample from the reservoir. However, for this study a measured
value was not available so a range of values for the residual gas
saturation to water, Sgrw, were obtained from the literature.5,6
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1999
 TABLE 5– CUMULATIVE RECOVERIES AFTER 25 YEARS FOR HETEROGENEOUS MODEL
RUNS

Layered Sand/Shale Variable Sand/Shale

Oil Gas cap Oil Gas cap

Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery
Model (%) (%) (%) (%)

Homogeneous 30.4 54.7 30.4 54.7

ELR 1 38.0 51.6 28.2 55.7
ELR 2 25.4 52.0 22.2 58.7
ELR 3 29.3 53.2 24.3 54.2
ELR 4 34.9 55.0 34.9 55.0
ELR 5 24.4 53.6 24.4 53.5
Average of 5 ELR Runs 30.4 53.1 26.8 55.4

Chierici et al.5 measured Sgrw to be 18%–26% for unconsoli-
dated sands. For consolidated sands, Fishlock et al.6 measured
Sgrw to be 35% on a high permeability sample.
For this study, an Sgrw range of 20%–32% was investigated.
In the above-mentioned results, an Sgrw value of 24% was used.
To determine the sensitivity of the gas cap recovery to the vari-
able of trapped gas saturation to water, a series of additional si-
multaneous production scenario runs were made using Sgrw val-
ues of 20%, 27%, and 32%. The gas cap recovery for each of
these runs is shown in Fig. 6. The gas cap recovery varies from a
high of 57% when Sgrw equals 20%, to a low of 42% when Sgrw
equals 32%. Intuitively, this is what one would expect; when more
gas is trapped in the reservoir, less gas is recovered at the surface.
These results indicate that the spread in the gas cap recovery
numbers can be significant and thus, Sgrw can greatly affect the
economics of a project.
Effects of Heterogeneity
The effect of permeability variation on the oil and gas recoveries
obtained using the simultaneous production methodology was in-
vestigated. The homogeneous model simulation results conclu-
sively proved that gas from the gas cap can be produced simulta-
neously without affecting oil recovery. Since all reservoirs are
heterogeneous, the authors wanted to determine how permeability
variation affected the process of simultaneously producing the gas
cap and oil column.
The probability density function of permeability used in this
study is shown in Fig. 7. This distribution is lognormal and has a
mean of 2500 md, the same mean as the homogeneous case. The
median is 1651 md, the mode is 760 md, 90% of the values lie
between 363 and 7,513 md, and 98% of values lie between 194
and 14,076 md. Because the distribution is lognormal, a large
percentage of the values are lower permeability values, with 49%
of the values falling within the range of 194–1651 md. In the
simulation runs, these lower-permeability cells will slow the flow
of water and this will distort the waterflood front.
The effects of heterogeneity were studied using a reservoir de-
scription provided by two different geostatistical models: layered
sand/shale and variable sand/shale. These models were con-
structed using the above-described probability density function of
permeability. The pertinent variogram information for each mod-
elis given in Table 4. Unconditional simulation was used to gen-
erate five equally-likely realizations for each model. Each model
realization was run to simulate the simultaneous production of the
gas cap and oil column. Identical input parameters and constraints
were used in each model run, the only difference being in the
permeability variation.
The permeability distribution for one of the equally likely re-
alizations for both the layered sand/shale model and variable sand/
shale model is shown in Fig. 8. For the purposes of illustration,
the vertical scale in Fig. 8 has been exaggerated by 500. As indi-
cated by the variogram information in Table 4 and the pictures in
Fig. 8, these models are significantly different. The variogram of
the layered sand/shale model forces its permeability to be some-
what continuous in the areal plane and to vary significantly in the
vertical plane. The variogram for the variable sand/shale model
forces its permeability to vary significantly in both the areal and
vertical planes.
The oil recoveries for the five equally likely realizations
共ELRs兲 of the layered sand/shale model vary from 24.4% to
38.0%, with the average of the five ELR runs being 30.4% 共Table
5 and Fig. 9兲. This happens to be the same as the oil recovery for
the homogeneous case, but this is just by chance. The wide range
in the oil recoveries for the five ELR models indicates that het-
erogeneity can lead to very different water-oil displacement effi-

Fig. 9–Oil recovery vs. time for the layered sand/shale equally Fig. 10–Gas cap recovery vs. time for the layered sand/shale
likely realization runs. equally likely realization runs.

T.C. Billiter and A.K. Dandona: Production of Gas Cap and Oil Column SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1999 417

Fig. 11–Oil recovery vs. time for the variable sand/shale equally
likely realization runs.
ciencies, both favorable and unfavorable as compared to the ho-
mogeneous run. The distribution of ELR oil recoveries both above
and below the oil recovery for the homogeneous case is due to a
layering effect. A higher oil recovery is obtained when the order-
ing of the permeability is such that the high-permeability layers
are at the top of the structure and the low-permeability layers are
at the bottom of the structure. For such a system, the viscous
forces counteract the gravitational forces to increase displacement
efficiencies. A lower oil recovery is obtained when the layering
order is reversed and the low-permeability layers are at the top of
the structure and the high-permeability layers are at the bottom of
the structure. In this system, the viscous forces and gravitational
forces work together to decrease displacement efficiencies.
The gas cap recoveries for the ELRs of the layered sand/shale
model vary within the narrow range of 51.6%–55.0%, with an
average of 53.1% 共Table 5 and Fig. 10兲. These values are very
close to the gas cap recovery value of 54.7% for the homogeneous
case. These results indicate that heterogeneity does not signifi-
cantly affect the gas cap recovery when the production methodol-
ogy of simultaneously producing the gas cap and oil column is
utilized. This is intuitively expected since the displacement in the
gas cap is very piston-like due to the favorable water to gas vis-
cosity ratio of 35. Overall, the effects of heterogeneity on gas
recovery are minimized because the gas can outrun the advancing
waterfront.
The oil recoveries for the five ELRs of the variable sand/shale
model vary from 22.2% to 34.9%, with an average of 26.8%
共Table 5 and Fig. 11兲. Once again, the wide range in oil recoveries
for the five ELR models indicates that heterogeneity can lead to
very different water-oil displacement efficiencies. The variable
Fig. 12–Gas cap recovery vs. time for the variable sand/shale
equally likely realization runs.
418 T.C. Billiter and A.K. Dandona: Production of Gas Cap and Oil Column
sand/shale model has more permeability variation in the areal di-
rection, which causes lower recoveries in general than the layered
sand/shale model.
The gas cap recoveries for the ELRs of the variable sand/shale
model vary within the narrow range of 53.5%–58.7%, with an
average of 55.4% 共Table 5 and Fig. 12兲. Once again, these values
are very close to gas cap recovery value of 54.7% for the homo-
geneous case. Thus, the same observations made for the layered
sand/shale model are applicable to the variable sand/shale model.
Since the gas cap recovery is relatively constant for both the
layered sand/shale model and variable sand/shale model, the rev-
enue from the gas cap will constitute a higher percentage of the
project NPV if reservoir heterogeneity is such that the oil recovery
from a given reservoir is low. For such reservoirs, simultaneously
producing the gas cap and oil column is very attractive. On the
other hand, when reservoir heterogeneity is such that the oil re-
covery from a given reservoir is high, this production methodol-
ogy will still be attractive, because early gas production will in-
crease NPV.
Conclusions
It has been shown that simultaneously producing the gas cap and
oil column improves NPV for the reservoir investigated. For simi-
lar reservoirs, where variables such as dip angle, gas cap/oil col-
umn size ratio, and residual gas saturation to water are favorable,
this production methodology can be economically viable if an
attractive gas market exists and thus, should be investigated. The
results have shown that the economics of this process depend on
the tradeoff between early gas sales and trapped gas since the oil
recovery is virtually the same, regardless of whether or not the gas
cap is produced as long as water is injected at the gas-oil contact.
It is recognized that each reservoir and fluid system is unique.
The displacement of gas by injecting water at the gas-oil con-
tact is an efficient process. The water/gas viscosity ratio of 35
causes the viscous forces to dominate the gravitational forces re-
sulting in an efficient, piston-like displacement. In fact, the ben-
efits of having a favorable viscosity ratio are so high that even
introducing large permeability variations does not significantly af-
fect the gas cap recovery.
The future direction of this work will investigate the effects of
reservoir dip angle, gas cap production rates relative to water
injection rates at the gas-oil contact, reservoir permeability, and
oil viscosity to develop empirical equations for determining appli-
cability of this production methodology. Another possible inves-
tigation will be the blowdown of the watered-out gas cap after oil
column depletion to further increase the total recovery from the
gas cap.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere thanks to Texaco Inc. and
management at Texaco EPTD for providing us with time to pur-
sue this effort. We especially thank Dr. Ed Hrkel of EPTD and
Mr. Greg Himes of Texaco Exploration for their encouragement.
Lastly we would also like to express our gratitude to our col-
leagues at EPTD who provided useful ideas during this project
and who took the time to edit our manuscript.
References
1. Bleakley, W.B.: ‘‘A look at Adena Today,’’ Oil & Gas Journal 共1966
April兲 18, 83.
2. Werovsky, V., Tromboczky, S., Miklos, T., and Kristof, M.: ‘‘Case
History of Algyo Field, Hungary,’’ paper SPE 20995 presented at
SPE Europec 90, The Hague, The Netherlands, 22–24 October.
3. Deboni, W. and Field, M.B.: ‘‘Design of a Waterflood Adjacent to a
Gas-Oil Contact,’’ paper SPE 5085 presented at the 1974 SPE Annual
Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, 6-9 October.
4. Ader, J.C., Williams, B.J., and Hanafy, H.H.: ‘‘Gas Cap Water Injec-
tion Enhances Waterflood Process To Improve Oil Recovery in Badri
Kareem Field,’’ paper SPE 37756 presented at the 1997 SPE Middle
East Oil Show, Bahrain, 15–18 March.
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1999
 5. Chierici, G.L., Ciucci, G.M., and Long, G.: ‘‘Experimental Research Travis C. Billiter works for Texaco E&P Technology Dept. in
on Gas Saturation Behind the Water Front in Gas Reservoirs Sub- Houston, where he has simulated significant gas-condensate
jected to Water Drive,’’ papers for the 6th World Petroleum Con- and black-oil reservoirs. His interests are in reservoir simulation,
gress, Frankfurt 共June 1963兲, Section II, Paper 17, PD 6, p. 1. phase behavior/thermodynamics, and the application of
6. Fishlock, T.P., Smith, R.A., Soper, B.M., and Wood, R.W.: ‘‘Experi- finite-difference simulators to pressure transient analysis. He
mental Studies on the Waterflood Residual Gas Saturation and Its holds a BS degree in petroleum engineering from Marietta
Production by Blowdown,’’ paper SPE 15455 presented at the 1986 College and a PhD in chemical engineering from Texas A&M
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, U. He is a member of the Editorial Review Committee. Anil K.
Oct. 5–8. Dandona is a reservoir engineer with Texaco E&P Technology
Dept. He has worked in the oil industry for more than 25 years
on projects spanning the globe. His interests are in reservoir
SI Metric Conversion Factors engineering, reservoir simulation, reservoir management, and
bbl ⫻ 1.589 874 E⫺01 ⫽ mm3 enhanced recovery. He holds MS and PhD degrees in petro-
cp ⫻ 1.0* E⫺03 ⫽ Pa s leum engineering from Texas A&M U.
ft ⫻ 3.048* E⫺01 ⫽ m
ft3 ⫻ 2.831 685 E⫺02 ⫽ m3
°F ⫻ (°F⫺32)/1.8 ⫽ °C
md ⫻ 9.869 233 E⫺04 ⫽ ␮m2
mile ⫻ 1.609 344* E⫹00 ⫽ km
psi ⫻ 6.894 757 E⫹00 ⫽ kPa
*Conversion factors are exact. SPEREE

T.C. Billiter and A.K. Dandona: Production of Gas Cap and Oil Column SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1999 419