Economic Evaluation of Cuyama South Field Water Flooding and Tuning Salinity Practices

ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE
CUYAMA SOUTH OIL FIELD
BY:
SAMUEL ANU FAGBEMI
SULAIMAN OLABIYI
ZAMEEL MOHAMMED HARIS
MOHAMMED ALSHARIF
Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field
Table of Contents
1. ABSTRACT
Objective
2. INTRODUCTION
Brief History
Reserves
Volumetric Analysis
Monte Carlo Analysis
Geological description
3. PAST & CURRENT PRODUCTION
History
- Primary Recovery
- Secondary Recovery
- Production Analysis
Year by Year review
Fetkovich Analysis
Cumulative Production (Bubble Map )
Economic Analysis
4. FUTURE PRODUCTION
Review
- Options
- Selection
Economic Analysis
5. CONCLUSION
Review
Recommendation
REFERENCES
2|P a ge
1.0 ABSTRACT
This Project was carried to evaluate the Cuyama South Oil Field with respect to engineering
and economic considerations. All effort was made to use as accurate as possible values
whenever possible. Assumptions of various estimates were also stated when necessary.
1.1 OBJECTIVE
The Objective of the project was basically to complete an Engineering and Economic study
of the Cuyama South Oil Field. From then on, a plan of operation based on any favourable
scenarios possible was recommended.
3|P a ge
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 BRIEF HISTORY
The South Cuyama field was discovered in 1949 by Richfield Oil Co. (ARCO), and developed
on a 10 acre pattern with the development program essentially completed in 1951. The
South Cuyama field is located in Santa Barbara County, California, about 50 miles west of
Bakersfield. The field produces from the Dibblee and the colgrove sands at a depth of about
4000 & 5800 ft respectively The thickness of the Diblee sands average around 200, while
the thickness for the Colgrove sand is about 50. The oil bearing sand of the South Cuyama
field is found in the Vaqueros formation deposited in the early Miocene age. The Dibblee
sands have a porosity of about 26-29 percent and an average permeability of 215 Md. The
colgrove sands have porosity about 23 percent and an average permeability about 400 md
.The reservoir pressure at discovery was 1660 psi and reservoir temperature was 146 deg F.
The OOIP was estimated to be 450 MMSTB. A gas cap was present above the oil column and
the OGIP in the gas cap was estimated to be 106BCF. Another 160 BCF of gas was present as
solution gas in the oil phase. Oil from the South Cuyama Field is of generally medium to high
API gravity, ranging from 28 to 36 API.
Maximum production for the field was attained in 1951, shortly after discovery, during
which over 14 MMSTB of oil were pumped rapidly at about 38,000 bopd from the Dibblee
and Colgrove pools. Production has declined steadily since. Before South Cuyama was
unitized in 1953, the gas being produced was flared or used as fuel, after unitization, a gas
reinjection plant was installed and all the produced gas except for the gas used for internal
consumption, was reinjected into the gas cap from 1953 to 1963. The major mechanism for
Oil production until 1963 was gas cap drive. The oil production remained constant at about
30,000 bopd until the early 1960s and then began to decline gradually. Producing wells
were completed with slotted-liners initially over the entire Interval, but as the gas
production from individual wells became excessive, the slotted-liners were pulled-out and
replaced with perforated liners to control fluid production from individual sand intervals.
Gas sales started in 1963 and net gas production reached a peak of about 70 MMCF/day
4|P a ge

around 1967. Gas sales were closed in 1977 and the current gas production is being used
mainly as field and gas plant fuel, with any remaining gas being reinjected into the reservoir.
Water encroachment occurred along the north flank of the field from an aquifer and water
production from the unit was less than 10,000 bwpd in the 1950s. Produced water was
reinjected into the south flank that does not receive aquifer support and producing wells on
the north flank that watered out were pumped off to prevent water encroachment updip.
Water production has increased steadily and currently averages about 30,000 bwpd. A total
of about 280 MMSTB of water has been produced from the field, while about 245 MMSTB
of the produced water has been reinjected.
Reservoir study done in 1966 and 1973 to track the movement of each phase identified that
the gas cap moved downstructure, and the gas-oil ratio in oil-producing wells exceeded
solution GOR, Before gas sales were started in 1963. Produced gas that was reinjected in the
gas cap helped maintain reservoir pressure, as a measure of the amount of gas recycled
through the reservoir, the total gas production from the field has been about 620 BCF,
which is about 6 times the original gas in the gas cap. When gas sales started, an attempt
was made to partially replace voidage by downdip water injection into the aquifer. This
injection was partly successful, however, and reservoir pressure decreased considerably in
this time period. The downstructure wells that were located on the north flank began to
produce water from the encroaching aquifer before the expanding gas cap reached these
wells. The operating philosophy for producing zone completions was to move to the lower
zones if a well produced excessive gas and to move to higher zones if a well produced
excessive water.
The reservoir study in 1966 concluded that a clean oil band could still be located in some
sands in which the gas cap had not moved far enough downstructure and water had not
moved far enough upstructure. The recovery, mechanisms in South Cuyama were gravity
drainage and permeability-controlled gas and water displacement. By 1973, no clean oil
band could be located. Sands that had previously been swept by gas had now also been
swept by water as the water-table moved upstructure.
5|P a ge
2.2 RESERVES
2.2.1 VOLUMETRIC ESTIMATE CONSIDERATIONS
Given estimates of the in-place petroleum, the portion that can be recovered by a defined
set of wells and operating conditions can be estimated based on analogue field performance
and/or simulation studies using available reservoir information. Key assumptions are made
regarding reservoir drive mechanisms. The estimates of recoverable quantities must reflect
uncertainties affecting in-place volumes such as,
Reservoir geometry and trap limits that impact gross rock volume.
Geological Characteristics that define pore volume and permeability distribution.
Elevation of fluid contacts.
Combinations of reservoir quality, fluid types, and contacts that control fluid
saturations.
Taking these uncertainties into considerations one can come with a volumetric estimate for
the original oil in place (OOIP) as well as Original Gas in Place.
6|P a ge
Data
Cuyama South (east area)
Cuyama South (main area)
Field name
Dibblee
Discovery
Avg depth
Pay Zone Thickness
Productive area
Porosity
Soi
Swi
Sgi
Boi
Bgi
Reserves
Total Oil
Reserves
Colgrove
4100 ft
250 ft
1270
26 %
69 %
31 %
1.2 rb/stb
368,243,167.50
Dibblee
4300
60-120
1270
23
75
25
1.1
139,056,860.45
Discovery
Avg depth
Pay Zone Thickness
Productive area
Porosity
Soi
Swi
Sgi
Boi
Bgi
7500 ft
84 ft
10
20 %
70 %
30 %
1.15
793,339.83 STB
508,093,367.78 STB
2.2.1.2 Monte Carlo Analysis

From the volumetric calculations an estimate of about 500 million barrels was obtained.
This compares favourable with the values obtained from literature which are in the range of
440-510 million barrels of oil. To achieve consistency, the value of 450 million barrels is
chosen after doing a Monte Carlo Analysis. Monte Carlo Analysis by varying the following
factors by +/-10%.
Height
Area
Porosity
7|P a ge

Monte Carlo Results.
Colgrove Area
Dibblee ( Main Area )
8|P a ge
Dibblee ( East Area)
Monte Carlo Estimated value OOIP (STB)

Colgrove
129,000,000.00
Dibblee (Main Area)
320,000,000.00
Dibblee (East Area)
835,000.00
Total
449,835,000.00
9|P a ge
2.3 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
The oil field is south of the town of New Cuyama in the portion of the Cuyama Valley that
slopes gently into the northern foothills of the Sierra Madre Mountains. Parts of the field
are on hilly terrain, and some within the Los Padres National Forest. The productive area of
the field as reported by DOGGR is 2,650 acres. The South Cuyama field is a structural trap
where Lower Miocene sands have been folded into a complexly faulted, asymmetrical
anticline. The field is approximately 4 miles long and up to 2 miles wide. The structure dips
more steeply to the southwest flank compared with the northeast flank. The reservoir
consists of a stacked series of shallow marine sands, with a total gross pay interval of 400
to500 ft. The field is largely faulted, although there is no known sealing fault, it hinders the
free flow in the formation.
10 | P a g e

Oil in the South Cuyama Basin comes from two primary pools, the Miocene-age Dibblee
Sand and the Colgrove Sand, porous units in the Vaqueros Formation underneath the largely
impermeable Monterey Formation. The sedimentary Cuyama Basin is cut by many small
faults, and the oil exists in a series of stratigraphic traps, where it is in most cases blocked in
its upward motion by impermeable blocks of Monterey, often offset by faults. The source
rock for the South Cuyama oil is most likely the Soda Lake Shale member of the Vaqueros
Formation.
Overlying the faulted and broken Miocene rocks, which include the Monterey, Branch
Canyon, and Santa Margarita Formations, and separated by an unconformity, is about 2,000
to 2,500 feet of the Pliocene Morales Formation. Although none of these upper rocks are
oil-bearing, gas has been produced from the Santa Margarita Formation.
11 | P a g e
3.0 PAST & CURRENT PRODUCTION

3.1 HISTORY
3.1.1 PRIMARY RECOVERY
Since the discovery of the South Cuyama Oil field in 1949, it has been produced mainly by
three different techniques:
-
Primary Depletion
Secondary recovery by water flood
Tertiary recovery by miscible slug flood with the injection of propane, dry gas and
water.
The Hibberd Pool is located in the south-central portion of the Cuyama Valley Santa Barbara
County, California. Using the Hibberd Pool reservoir as a representative sample of the South
Cuyama Oil Field, it reached its maximum production of 1700 BOPD in April 1952, with 15
wells producing. By February 1955, the production rate had declined to 460 BOPD.
The production of the Hibberd Pool prior to unitization indicated that the reservoir had
been producing principally by solution-gas drive with a partial water drive. The pool
performance curve is presented the figure below:
12 | P a g e

Only the left part of the figure is significant for this section. It can be seen from the figure
that the oil production rate increases sharply from the point of discovery and beginning of
production. It reaches the peak production rate in 1952 and starts to decrease gradually
from then on till 1955 when it was unitized.
The reservoir pressure decreased from the start of production in the field till the point of
unitization. This is expected for a reservoir being produced by mainly solution gas drive and
a partial water drive. The water production rate had the same production profile as the oil
rate in the early period of primary production but doesnt decrease as noticeably from then
onwards.
Extrapolation of the oil-production curve indicated a primary ultimate economic recovery of

approximately 2,240,000 bbl, for a recovery of 31.1 percent of original stock-tank oil in
place. This compares reasonably with the corresponding values for the field as a whole.
However, in order to increase the recovery efficiency, the Hibberd pool was unitized with
the aim of using secondary recovery techniques.
3.1.2 SECONDARY RECOVERY

3.1.2.1 Gas Injection in Cuyama South
In between 1940 and 1960, a number of gas injection projects were initiated in California oil
pools for the purpose of maintaining reservoir pressure. Since most of these reservoirs are
reaching the end of their productive life, secondary recovery approach seems appropriate.
Gas was first injected into Cuyama South reservoir on an experimental basis from March to
September 1950. Full scale injection then began in July 1953 following the unitization of the
reservoir. All produced gas and as well as some outside gas, were injected into the reservoir
for 10 years.
Dry-gas injection commenced into Hibberd Unit wells on October 23, 1963 at a rate of 2000
Mscf/D and injection was terminated January 15, 1964 with a cumulative total 137,356
13 | P a g e

Mscf. After dry-gas production increased from 11 Mscf/D to 1296 Mscf/D in December
1963, then declined to 55Mscf/D. To maintain the reservoir pressure in the field at this time
they started doing water injection, although it helped, it was not enough to maintain the
required pressure. Once they discovered, they stopped gas sales and started reinjecting gas
back into the reservoir.
Later on the life of the well, it was discovered that there was water encroachment based on
material balance calculations. Therefore from 1955 to 1968, water produced from the
Homan Pool was injected into edge wells in the pool. (OOIP 500 million bbl by volumetric
and 450 million bbl by material balance, RF is 47.6%).
At the end of 2008, the average water cut the percentage of liquid pumped from oil wells
that was water was running at 98.4 percent, indicating a field very close to the end of its
useful life. Wells on the field were producing an average of 7.9 barrels of oil per day, and the
operators have been reinjecting the enormous quantities of water produced with the oil
back into the formation through approximately 50 water disposal and water flood wells
scattered throughout the field.
3.1.2.2 Water Injection in Cuyama South

Water injection was started in Hibberd Unit on August 1, 1964 to confine the oil and
propane to the top of the structure. Water injection rate commenced at 4400 B/D and was
later reduced to 3400 B/D to correspond to less reservoir voidage caused by declining gas
production. The water injection rate was varied to maintain the reservoir pressure at an
average 1100 psi.
3.1.2.3 Tertiary production (propane slug size)

Criteria for this are that oil saturation is above the residual value obtained by waterflood. A
water saturation of 73 percent was used as the upper limit for oil mobility to occur. A 45
percent pore volume was used to calculate the amount of propane slug and dry gas
required. This reservoir volume equals 220,000 Mscf at 1000 psi, or 6,134,000 gal of
propane and 63,500 Mscf of dry gas.
14 | P a g e
As of January 1, 1963, the estimated remaining stock tank oil in place of the 73 percent
water saturation was 904,000 bbl of which 315,000 bbl were estimated recoverable. On
March 15, 1963, all producing and water-injection wells in the Hlbberd Pool were shut in
to allow the pressures within the reservoir to reach an equilibrium condition before
injection
of
propane.
Inasmuch as the Hibberd pool is a small reservoir, pressure
equilibrium wasnt obtained until about 2 months (March 19 to April 11, 1963).
Injection commenced at a rate of 45,000 gal/day. At this rate, production steady for a while
at 13BOPD, 1000 BWPD and 13 Mscf/D from April 15 to June 29, 1963. It was not until June
29 that production began to climb steadily at about 126 BOPD, 631 BWPD and 283 Mscf/D
in July 24. Propane injection into Hibberd Pool was terminated October 3, 1963, when gross
total of 7,628,330 gal of propane had been injected.
3.1.3 PRODUCTION ANALYSIS

3.1.3.1 Production prior to 1977:
1950 1951 The oil production increases from 1950 to end of 1951 as its during the
early times of field discovery and new wells were drilled all over the field, the oil was
15 | P a g e
produced only on solution gas drive, as you can see the reservoir pressure also
started declining during this period. Water cut was also less during this period.
1952 1955 The oil rate started declining during this period, the reservoir pressure
also declined at an increased pace. But, the water production rate remained almost
constant, and as such the water cut went up with the declined oil production.
1956 As the production and reservoir pressure declined rapidly, the need for
pressure maintenance program commenced. Its during this time they started water
injection as a secondary recovery process. The sudden jump in production rate as
well as reservoir pressure was noticed.
1957 1962 The oil production started to decline again during this period, but the
reservoir pressure remained fairly constant. The water production rate went up
drastically high, it was probably that the water was getting cycled.
1963 Since the water cut increased drastically, the requirement for tertiary
recovery started, for this they opted to inject Propane, it was during this time they
also shut down the field for the reservoir pressure to equalize. Towards the end of
the year the oil production started climbing up.
1964 1977 The production peaked in 1964 and then it started to decline
gradually towards the end of 1964, and it was declining over a period of time. The
gas sales during this period have depleted the reservoir pressure a lot.
16 | P a g e

3.1.3.1 Production from 1977 - Present:
BOPD
20
18
16
14
STB/D
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2000
2005
2010
2015
Water Cut
99.000%
98.000%
97.000%
96.000%
95.000%
94.000%
93.000%
92.000%
91.000%
90.000%
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
17 | P a g e
GOR
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
1977 1980 The oil production decreased drastically, The water cut also increased
from 91% to 92.5%. The GOR ratio remained fairly constant.
1980 1986 The oil production started climbing up, when the stopped gas sales
and started injecting back into the reservoir, new wells were also drilled during this
time frame.
1987 2002 the oil production remained fairly constant during this period. The
GOR went peaked, due to coning and the gas injected was getting recycled. Water
cut also increased at a gradual rate.
2002 2004 - New company acquired the field during this time and started drilling
new wells in the area, this showed sudden increase in production. The wells drilled
were in isolated areas of the field bounded by fractures. Water cut remained
increasing in the same pace.
2005 Present The oil production started declining at a much faster rate, wells
were recompleted and the GOR remained fairly constant. Water cut also went up
during this period.
18 | P a g e

3.1.3.1.1 Fetkovich Analysis-
Fetkovich analysis was done on the field with the production data from 1977 2012, it gave
us a b value close to 0.1, which shows that the reservoir was performing under weak drive
mechanism. Reservoir analysis has shown that the field has a weak water drive and also the
production was mainly under solution gas drive. The low b value can also incorporated to
the fact that the field was producing heavy oil, which is found in the Dibblee Sand,
Southeast Area of the field had oil having higher gravity and lower viscosity.
19 | P a g e
3.1.3.1.2 Cumulative production data

The cumulative production was analyzed on a yearly basis to come to different conclusions.
The reasons for the graph to perform as below have been briefed earlier.
20 | P a g e
BOPD
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
STB
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2000
2005
2010
2015
BWPD
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
STB
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Bubble Map
21 | P a g e
Individual well production data has been analyzed for a number of wells and plotted to
generate the bubble map, shown below. The map also shows different well locations within
the field.
3.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The Cuyama South Oil Field is a relatively older generation field and is in the late stages of
its productive life span pending and significant innovation. There is approximately two
percent of the recoverable original calculated oil in place. Only about 79 wells remained in
production as at 2009. The average water cut was about 98.5% and the production rate also
averaged at about 8stb/d.
Economic evaluation is carried out for the field from the year of discovery to the present
day. It showed that the economic limit had not been reached due to the gas injection and
Waterflood operations in place. Revenue has dwindled over the years as expected and the
significant economic analysis values as at the present day are:
Period: 1949 to 2012

22 | P a g e
NPV
$1,662,215,800
Cumulative Cash
$2,063,568,945
IRR
163.37%
Recovery
50.19%
Oil Produced
225,843,671 Bbls
Payout Date
1959 (Est.)
Total CAPEX
$1,200,000,000
Total OPEX
$1,874,250,894
The overall recovery of 50.19% is pretty impressive but it also underlines the fact that the
field is in the later stages of its life. The Net Cash flow in 2012 was $3,439,680 which is
achieved by keeping operating costs constant and low while also avoiding any capital
investments. The following plots depict the profile of some economic parameters over the
life of the well.
The payout date can be seen to be around 10 years into the project, which is about 1959.
About 30 years into the project, the continuous relatively steep increase in the Cash returns,
Cumulative Cash and NPV started to increase marginally. This correlates with the late stage
in the field life. The use of continuous water flooding and gas injection has primary
prolonged the life of the field hence the economic limit has not yet been reached as at 2012.
23 | P a g e
3,500,000,000.00
Cumulative Cash Flow
3,000,000,000.00
Present value
2,500,000,000.00
Net Present Value
2,000,000,000.00
1,500,000,000.00
1,000,000,000.00
500,000,000.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-500,000,000.00
-1,000,000,000.00
-1,500,000,000.00
5E+09
Economic Limit
4E+09
Annual Net Cash Returns

Total OPEX
3E+09
2E+09
1E+09
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-1E+09
-2E+09
3.2.1 IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

The Detailed Economic Evaluation is given in the attached references but some important
considerations during the evaluation include:
24 | P a g e
Oil Prices were averaged for different time periods as can be seen in the attachment.
Specific values of $33.62 and $54.52was used for the year 2003 and 2004
respectively to avoid highly distorted economic parameters for those years. Exact
Gas Prices was used for each year after 1977.
Also, Individual gas and oil rates were not available before 1977. Average values of
$0.16 and $31 were used for gas and oil prices respectively prior to 1977 when
annual production rates started to become available for analysis.
OPEX for Annual Well Maintenance was staggered using a year-on-year decrease of
3.4%. This decrease can basically be attributed to the gradual decrease in the
number of active wells over the life of the well.
OPEX for Oil production was staggered in such a way that it considered many factors.
However, the overriding factors were the gradual decline in production & operations
as well as the Oil Price. The gradual decline in production and low oil prices from
around 1980 to late 1990s implied a gradual decrease in the OPEX for Oil Production.
The spike in Oil Prices from then onwards led to more ambitious Waterflooding and
production operations and hence an increase in the OPEX for Oil production.
OPEX for water injection is inclusive of costs arising from both water injection and
disposal even though the amount of water disposed was insignificant for the most
part.
For Annual Gas Gross Revenue after 2005 when E&B purchased the field, a portion
of 35% of produced gas is estimated to have been sold. Prior to then and after 1977,
produced gas was used in the onsite plant to fuel operations and the any remaining
portion re-injected back into the reservoir. Prior to 1977, a higher portion of the gas
produced was sold. Such sales stated in 1963 and peaked around 1967. All these
events were accounted for in the calculation and estimation of the economic
parameters.
25 | P a g e
4.0 FUTURE PRODUCTION

4.1 REVIEW, OPTIONS AND SELECTION
4.1.0 HORIZONTAL WELL FEASIBLITY
Considering Cuyama field situation, different solutions were proposed to optimize oil
production with the lowest cost possible. The utilization of horizontal wells technology in
naturally fractured reservoir will improve the recovery of hydrocarbons. However, to
maximize the recovery from naturally fractured reservoir using horizontal wells technology,
it requires a quantitative characterization of the natural fracture system, so that the
proposed horizontal wells can be drilled orthogonally intersecting the natural fractures.
Naturally fractured reservoir can be characterized from data obtained by either direct or
indirect methods. Direct sources consist of core analysis, oriented cores, and drill cuttings.
Indirect sources include well log analysis, well test analysis, seismic techniques, production
and drilling history, and outcrop geological studies. Implementing the horizontal wells
technology in Cyuama field will require natural fracture system characterization to insure
the productivity of the system. Considering the field remaining proved reserve and the cost
for conducting characterization of the natural fracture system in addition to drilling
horizontal wells cost, makes this approach economically not Feasible.
Moreover, Cuyama filed was evaluated for the application of Micellar-Polymer flooding and
proven to be not a good candidate for such application. Considering that, we decided to
propose tuning the injected water salinity, and using Inflow control valves as solutions to
optimize oil production. These techniques will improve the sweep efficiency of the
waterflooding application that have been already taking place as a secondary recovery
mechanism in Cuyama filed.
In the following section, a scientific definition of waterflooding, and an extensive

experimental study of smart waterflooding will be discussed to reflect the applicability of
implementing those techniques in Cuyama filed.
Waterflooding is a type of secondary recovery mechanism where water or gas is injected

with the aim of complete or partial pressure maintenance and accelerated development
through the positive displacement of oil toward the production wells. Waterflooding is a
26 | P a g e

mean by which pumping of water or gas through an injection well into the reservoir. This
injected water helps to sweep the oil toward the production well. When the first injected
water gets to the production well, it indicated the breakthrough point of the injection
system. Two of the common problems that plague waterfloods are poor sweep efficiency
and low contact factor, which is determined by improper displacement in a direction
orthogonal to reservoir strata.
4.1.1 TUNING THE INJECTION WATER SALINITY

In recent years, extensive research has shown that tuning salinity and ionic composition of
the injected water can favourably affect oil/brine/ rock interactions, alter rock wettability,
enhance microscopic displacement efficiency, and eventually improve waterflood oil
recovery.
The idea is to inject chemistry- optimized water in terms of salinity and ionic composition
into the reservoir instead of any available water that may currently be injected or planned
to be injected. This option has several advantages:
o It can potentially provide higher ultimate oil recovery with minimal
investment in current operation with assumption that waterflooding facilities
are already available.
o When compared to EOR, it could avoid extensive capital investment
associated with conventional EOR methods, including expenditure on new
infrastructure and plants, new injection facilities, production and monitoring
wells, changes in tubing and casing, and many others.
o It can be applied not only during the late life cycle of the reservoir, but
potentially also at early stages of production.
o Different practices were implemented and it showed an additional oil

recovery of 7%-8.5% with twice diluted seawater, 9%-10% with 10 times
diluted seawater, and 1%-1.6% with 20 times diluted seawater.
27 | P a g e

A set of experimental studies needs to be conducted in order to determine the right
ionic composition, so as to apply smart Water flooding. The experimental parameter and
procedures are designed to reflect reservoir conditions and current field injection practice,
including reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature, initial reservoir connate water, and
synthetic brines of injection water. Those experiments includes:
Rock Samples Selection
Fluid Properties
Surface Chemistry study
Surface Charge Measurements
Wettability Measurements
4.1.2 INFLOW CONTROL VALVES

Inflow Control Valves, often referred to as equalizer, is a completion hardware that is
deployed as a part of well completions aimed at distributing the inflow evenly. Even though
the detail structures vary from one design to another, the principle for different inflow
control devices is the same - restrict flow by creating additional pressure drop, and
therefore balancing or equalizing wellbore pressure drop to achieve an evenly distributed
flow profile along a well. In waterflooding secondary recovery, Inflow Control Valves can be
used to adjust the injection rate in an injector well, or production rate in a production well.
When inflow control valves are used on wells they are called intelligent or smart wells,
Smart well technology is a non-conventional well with downhole instrumentation (sensors,
28 | P a g e

valves and inflow control devices) installed on the production or injection tubing. Such wells
allow for the continuous in-situ monitoring of fluid flow rates and pressure and the remote
adjustment of downhole valves. The data can be analyzed and then used to adjust the zonal
flow control devices command from the surface. This technology will help to isolate the
reservoir into different segments using inflow control valves and the packers which allow to
counteract the effect of high permeability zones that have high influence on the recovery
because they can cause early water breakthrough and trapping of by-passed oil.
There are three key elements factors that are considered when using the ICV. Flow control,
which is the ability to segment wellbore into individual flow unites or zones, and control the
inflow or outflow of fluid in each zone without physical intervention. Inflow control valves
can be binary (on/off), multi-position, or infinitely variable, the latter two providing the
ability to constrain or choke flow into or from the zone, and thus provide greater ability of
control and optimization. Flow monitoring, which is the ability to generate data about key
reservoir parameters such as pressure, temperature, flow and fluid composition, in real
time, at frequencies suitable for analysis and understanding about the well and reservoir
performance. The data may come from electronic or optical sensors located downhole, in
close proximity to the reservoir, acquiring reservoir parameter data, in the ideal
implementation, from each zone. Flow optimization, which the ability to collect the
downhole reservoir parameter data, combine it with other relevant gathering and process
production data, store and transmit this data, provide analysis capabilities to generate
information and insight about the reservoir performance, make informed decision to modify
the well completion architecture using the downhole flow control, and implement the
changes to setting of the inflow control valves in a timely manner.
29 | P a g e

In waterflooding technique ICV are used as outflow control valves in whats called intelligent
injection wells where the control valves are implemented along with packer to help
separate the reservoir into segments, with each segments having its own control device, so
that it can be controlled based on the information being received at the surface. The control
device can be open and closed, so that desired zones can be flooded.
Intelligent well systems present numerous advantages in the area of accelerated production
and maintain a longer plateau period when compared to conventional completion
techniques. Some of the benefits of using intelligent wells are:
Prolonging well life and reducing water production, unwanted water production can
be turned off from a particular zone in the well; this capability boosts oil production
while reducing water handling at the surface.
Control water injection will help improve sweep efficiencies and ultimately increase
oil recovery.
Data can be collected for each interval, which enhances reservoir description.
Water breakthrough can be delayed
Well production can be managed and maintained by adjusting downhole valve

positions
Helps predict when water or gas will breakthrough.
Seize the pressure decline in the mature filed by minimizing Water & gas production.
Example of improving the production by using this technology at Norway is shown below.
30 | P a g e
4.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

According to the pervious experiments, using ICVs, and altering water salinity will improve
the sweep efficiency and yet optimize oil production. However, an economic analysis needs
to be conducted to investigate the visibility of implementing those techniques.
In regards to future production from the Cuyama South field, economic analysis was done
for 3 major scenarios. Like was described in the previous section of this chapter, popular
methods of enhancing production are not suitable to the Cuyama South field due to its
characteristics and productive life left. The 3 future scenarios forecasted are:
Maintaining Current Injection and Waterflooding Operation levels
Applying Smart Completion by tuning injected water salinity
Introducing the Inflow Control Valve or Equalizer (also a Smart Completion

Technique)
Economic evaluation is carried out for the field from the year of discovery to the economic
limit for each of the 3 scenarios listed above.
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL 3 SCENARIOS

Some important considerations about the economic evaluation of the three different
scenarios are discussed below:
31 | P a g e
The production history from 1977 to present is plotted and fitted to an exponential
profile to get the decline rate of 3.4%. This was used as the default decline rate for
the 3 scenarios before accounting for the impact of any surge in production as a
result of some enhanced recovery operation. The production history curve showed a
good correlation to an exponential profile and the decline rate of 3.4% is acceptable
considering the recovery operations active.
From the present day onwards, the amount of water injected is assumed to increase
from the average of 12 million barrels at an annual rate of 2%.This is done to account
for the fact that more water will be needed to replace the oil being extracted from
the reservoir. It will also account for a reduction in the gas injection which is being
declined at a rate of about 4%.
Future Oil and Gas Prices are assumed to be $85/bbl and $2.5/mscf respectively
OPEX for Oil Production is generally assumed to be in decline as it is anticipated the

number of wells in operation will continue the current trend of experiencing decline.
OPEX for Water Injection on the other hand will increase annually since amount of
water injected is assumed to increase. OPEX for Gas Injection experiences an annual
decline as expected also. Well Maintenance OPEX will continue to be staggered by a
3.4% annual decline.
4.2.1 ECONOMIC FORECAST FOR SCENARIO 1 (MAINTAINING CURRENT

RECOVERY OPERATIONS)
Cuyama South Field being in the later stages of its life has already been undergoing
significant secondary and attempted tertiary recovery for quite some time. The current
recovery operations are Waterflooding and to a lesser extent gas injection. About 12 million
barrels of water and 30000 mscf of gas are being injected per year. The injected water is
expected to increase slightly annually while the gas injected is expected to reduce.
Significant economic analysis parameters for Scenario 1 are given in the table below:
Period: 1949 to Economic Limit (2021)

32 | P a g e
NPV
$1,662,338,802
Cumulative Cash
$2,075,301,754
IRR
163.37%
Recovery
50.55%
Oil Produced
227,490,768 Bbls
Payout Date
1959 (Est.)
Total CAPEX
$1,200,000,000
Total OPEX
$1,978,721,444
The overall recovery of 50.59% is again pretty impressive if considering the overall life of the
field. The Net Cash flow in the last year of operation (2021) will be about $127,446.
In this scenario, the field is seen to last for about 10 more years. The following plots depict
the profile of some economic parameters over the life of the well.
Billions

3.50
Present value
3.00
Net Present Value
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
33 | P a g e
Total OPEX
Gross Income (Economic Limit)
5E+09
4E+09
3E+09
2E+09
1E+09
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-1E+09
-2E+09
All the curves can be observed to follow the same trends like those depicted in the previous
chapter for past and current production. This is expected since there was no significant
change in operations to extract more oil in this scenario. An additional 1,647,097 can be
produced before the economic limit is reached.
4.2.2 ECONOMIC FORECAST FOR SCENARIO 2 (SMART COMPLETION

TUNING INJECTED WATER SALINITY)
It was described in the recovery option review section why the Cuyama South Field is well
suited to this type of operation. Capital costs will be very minimal since waterflooding has
been carried out there for a long time. The increase in cost to introduce the technique will
come from the cost of injected water. To inject the required type of water, the cost of
injection is assumed to increase to $0.6/bbl.
This technique theoretically increases overall oil recovery by about 8.5% for 10 times diluted
water. This was effected by increasing the current production levels by only about 50%. 50%
is a very conservative estimate but it can be justified by considering the fact that the sweep
wont be as efficient practically. Also, the desired effects will be altered by the previously
34 | P a g e

long history of waterflooding and other attempted recovery operations. Lastly, it is very
difficult to make such claim at this stage in the life of the field.

NPV
$1,662,505,364
Cumulative Cash
$2,094,201,611
IRR
163.37%
Recovery
50.93%
Oil Produced
229,191,903 Bbls
Payout Date
1959 (Est.)
Total CAPEX
$1,200,000,000
Total OPEX
$2,075,235,654
The overall recovery of 50.93% is very impressive compared to the other scenarios. The Net
Cash flow in the last year of operation (2025) will be about $18,559. In this scenario, the
field is seen to last for about 15 more years. An additional 1,701,135 Bbls can be recovered
before the economic limit is reached compared to Scenario 1. Compared to Scenario 1, an
additional amount of $18,899,857 can be made while the total OPEX is increased by about
$94,514,210. The following plots depict the profile of some economic parameters over the
life of the well.
35 | P a g e
Present Value
Net Present Value
3,500,000,000.00
3,000,000,000.00
2,500,000,000.00
2,000,000,000.00
1,500,000,000.00
1,000,000,000.00
500,000,000.00
-500,000,000.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-1,000,000,000.00
-1,500,000,000.00
Total OPEX
5,000,000,000.00
4,000,000,000.00
3,000,000,000.00
2,000,000,000.00
1,000,000,000.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-1,000,000,000.00
-2,000,000,000.00
chapter for past and current production.
36 | P a g e
4.2.2 ECONOMIC FORECAST FOR SCENARIO 3 (SMART COMPLETION

INFLOW CONTROL VALVE)
The suitability of this operation was also described in the recovery option review. Capital
Investments for implementing this ICV will be $1,700,000 per well. To minimize costs, the
device will be installed in only 20 wells of the about 50 wells that will still be operating.
Hence, this scenario involves an additional $34,000,000 in Capital Expenditure.
This device theoretically increases production by about 30%. This was effected by increasing
the current production levels by only about 30%.

NPV
$1,662,133,471
Cumulative Cash
$2,068,413,383
IRR
163.37%
Recovery
50.83%
Oil Produced
228,745,472 Bbls
Payout Date
1959 (Est.)
Total CAPEX
$1,234,000,000
Total OPEX
$2,044,941,203
The overall recovery of 50.93% is again impressive compared to scenario 1 but not as good
as Scenario 2. The Net Cash flow in the last year of operation (2025) will be about
$209,743.24. In this scenario, the field is seen to last for about 15 more years too but less
money is made because the field didnt last long enough to significantly offset the additional
capital investment of $34,000,000.
An additional 1,254,704 Bbls can be recovered before the economic limit is reached
compared to Scenario 1. Compared to Scenario 1 this scenario results in a loss of $6,888,371
37 | P a g e

when economic limit is reached. The total OPEX is also increased by about $66,219,759. The
following plots depict the profile of some economic parameters over the life of the well.
Cumulative Cash
Present Value
Net Present Value
3,500,000,000.00
3,000,000,000.00
2,500,000,000.00
2,000,000,000.00
1,500,000,000.00
1,000,000,000.00
500,000,000.00
-500,000,000.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-1,000,000,000.00
-1,500,000,000.00
Total OPEX
5E+09
4E+09
3E+09
2E+09
1E+09
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-1E+09
-2E+09
chapter for past and current production.
38 | P a g e
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 REVIEW
In the previous chapter, the 3 suggested plans of action were economically evaluated and
the table below is a summary of the critical parameters derived from the analysis. The
parameters are at Economic Limit for the 3 scenarios.
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
(Using existing
(Injected Water
(Inflow Control
recovery operations) Salinity Tuning)
Valve)
Oil Recovery
50.55
50.93
50.83
Cumulative
$2,075,301,754
$2,094,201,611
$2,068,413,383
Economic Limit
2021
2025
2025
NPV
$1,662,338,802
$1,662,505,364
$1,662,133,471
IRR
163.37
163.37
163.37
Cash from field
5.2 RECOMMENDATION
The following points are recommended:
-
Based on the review section above, Scenario 2 which is a smart completion

technique that involves tuning the injected water salinity is the recommended plan
of action. It leads to the highest Ultimate Recovery, NPV and ends up making the
most money. It also extends the life of the well to the maximum time possible
among the 3 scenarios. This brings about a potential future opportunity to make
more money if there is an increase in the oil price or some other favourable
parameter.
Scenario 3 is the least attractive scenario and this is basically due to the additional
Capital Expenditure which could not be justified with the estimated production
39 | P a g e

increase over the remaining life of the field. A future increase in oil price might make
this option more attractive however.
REFERENCES
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/annual_reports/2008/PR06_Annual_2008.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Cuyama_Oil_Field
SPE143550 New Recovery Methods for Carbonate Reservoir Through Tuning the
Injection Water Salinity: Smart WaterFlooding
SPE 11763 Improved performance of Downhole Active Inflow Control Valves
through Enhanced Design
SPE 84193 Smart Waterflooding Tight Fractured Reservoirs Using Inflow Valves
SPE 154077 The Impact of the Injection Water Chemistry on Oil Recovery from
Carbonate Reservoirs
SPE 136996 Optimization of Waterflooding Using Smart Well Technology
Texas A&M University, ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SMART WELL
TECHNOLOGY
Walter A. English., Geology and Oil Prospects of Cuyama Valley, California.

C. M. Isaacs, USCGS. Geology and Physical Properties of the Monterey Formation California.
E. C. Babson, Babson and Sheppard., A Review of Gas Injection Projects in California.
Floyd T. Chambers., Tertiary Oil Recovery-Combination Water-Gas Miscible Flood-Hibberd Pool.
P. Pathak, K. D. Kuch, B.G. Kriel, E.S. Pasternack, T.P. Moorefield, J.H. Ligon, and S. J. Salter, ARCO
Oil & Gas Co., Evaluation of a Complex Sandstone Reservoir for EOR
SPE, AAPG, WPC, SPEE., Petroleum Resouces Management System.
California Department of Conservation. Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources.,
California Oil & Gas Fields. Volume II Southern, Central Coastal, and Offshore California Oil
and Gas Fields (CD-1).
Geoffrey A. Dorn and David A. Fisher, ARCO Oil & Gas Co., Detailed Fault Interpretation of 3-D
Seismic Data for EOR Planning.
California Department of Conservation. Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources., 2009
Annual Report of the State Oil & Gas Supervisor.
http://www.spe.org/spe-app/spe/industry/reserves/prms.htm
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/pubs_stats/Pages/technical_reports.aspx
40 | P a g e

Economic Evaluation of Cuyama South Field Water Flooding and Tuning Salinity Practices

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Economic Evaluation of Cuyama South Field Water Flooding and Tuning Salinity Practices

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE

CUYAMA SOUTH OIL FIELD

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Geological Characteristics that define pore volume and permeability distribution.

Elevation of fluid contacts.

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Cuyama South (east area)

Cuyama South (main area)

2.2.1.2 Monte Carlo Analysis

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Dibblee ( Main Area )

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Dibblee ( East Area)

Monte Carlo Estimated value OOIP (STB)

Dibblee (Main Area)

Dibblee (East Area)

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

2.3 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

3.0 PAST & CURRENT PRODUCTION

Secondary recovery by water flood

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Extrapolation of the oil-production curve indicated a primary ultimate economic recovery of

3.1.2 SECONDARY RECOVERY

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

3.1.2.2 Water Injection in Cuyama South

3.1.2.3 Tertiary production (propane slug size)

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Inasmuch as the Hibberd pool is a small reservoir, pressure

3.1.3 PRODUCTION ANALYSIS

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

3.1.3.1.2 Cumulative production data

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

3.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Period: 1949 to 2012

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Net Present Value

Annual Net Cash Returns

3.2.1 IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

4.0 FUTURE PRODUCTION

In the following section, a scientific definition of waterflooding, and an extensive

Waterflooding is a type of secondary recovery mechanism where water or gas is injected

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

4.1.1 TUNING THE INJECTION WATER SALINITY

o Different practices were implemented and it showed an additional oil

Engineering Analysis of the Cuyama South Oil Field

Rock Samples Selection

Surface Chemistry study

Surface Charge Measurements