SPE 140634

Application of Natural Water Dumpflood in a Depleted Reservoir for Oil

and Gas Recovery - Egbema West Example
Catherine Olukemi Osharode, SPE, Gloria Erivona, SPE, and Magnus Nnadi, SPE, Shell Petroleum
Development Company; and Kareem Folorunso, SPE, Nigerian Petroleum Development Company, Nigeria
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 34th Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition held in Tinapa – Calabar, Nigeria, 31 July–7 August 2010.

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 mechanism. Increasing the scope in this reservoir will not

Water Dumpflood for reservoir pressure support is a non-
conventional but simpler and cheaper alternative to
Surface Water Injection. With dumpflood technology, a
single well serves as the water producer and injector
hence; the complexities of water treatment on surface can
be avoided. A pilot Water Dumpflood scheme was
executed 1997 in the Egbema West field and post
performance analyses showed it has been successful in
maintaining good pressure support since its inception 12
years ago. Opportunity exists to increase oil recovery
significantly from this same reservoir by drilling
additional water dumpflood wells for increased oil
withdrawal given corresponding pressure support. With
this, oil wells that were shut in many years ago, to
minimise further pressure depletion, can be brought back
to production and maintained with good well and
reservoir management. There also exists an opportunity
to supply the associated gas from these wells to a nearby
power plant currently undergoing construction with a
capacity to utilize as much as 100 MMscf per day.
This paper explores the benefits of increased water
dumpflooding in the depleted reservoir and describes the
selection of number and position of dumpflood wells for
optimal recovery using dynamic modelling. It also
reviews the historical performance of the pilot scheme
and applies learning to improve the well completion
design, injection rates and effective sand control for the
additional wells. The application of Smart Technology for
improved well and reservoir management have also been
explored.
Water dumpflood can be very effective with good
selection of well position, number, source aquifer, and
target reservoir, completion design and sand control
only increase oil recovery but also support energy
demand through gas supply to the power plant.
Introduction
The D reservoir, penetrated by 21 conventional wells is
the major reservoir in Egbema West Field and this study
jointly carried out by SPDC and NPDC was aimed at
validating recommendations from previous studies to
apply full field dumpflooding for recovering remaing
hydrocarbon resources. Oil production from Egbema
West D reservoir was reduced from a peak of 32Mbopd to
an average rate of 5Mbopd between 1974 and 1981 due to
the rapid pressure decline in the reservoir (from 3452 to
2650 psig). The pressure decline was due to inability of
the D aquifer to support the reservoir withdrawal.
Subsequently, the 15 drainage points completed in
reservoir were closed-in for 5 years. In order to arrest the
pressure decline, stop further gas cap expansion and avoid
shrinkage loses, 2 drainage points were allowed to
produce at an average reservoir rate of 3Mbopd to
maintain voidage replacement from the weak aquifer
support, which will stabilise the reservoir pressure at 2650
psig. This natural depletion production strategy resulted to
lower recovery and suboptimal use of production
facilities.
Natural water dumpflood was recommended to increase
production while sustaining the reservoir pressure at the
current level of 2650 Psig. Natural dumpflood involves
injecting water into a target reservoir by allowing the
water to flow naturally from the water source (water
bearing sand) through gravity and/or pressure difference
between the two reservoirs using the same well. This
2 C.O. Osharode, F. Kareem, G. Erivona, M. Nnadi
technology has been applied successfully in the Umm
Gudair Field in Kuwait and some fields in Libya and
Bolivia. The Egbema West pilot dump flood scheme
commenced injection in September 1997 and it was used
to evaluate the viability of the natural dump flood as a
means of pressure maintenance in the Egbema West
sandstone reservoir located in the Niger Delta This pilot
was carried out by sidetracking an existing Egbema West
Well P1, located on the Western part of the reservoir.
Further pressure decline has been arrested as surveys
taken in 2009 showed an 8 Psi increase after 12 years of
steady withdrawal. Also, cumulative oil production over
same period was 33% above prediction without dump
flood support.
Analyses of the pilot dumpflood scheme in combination
with 35 years of historical data have been incorporated in
modelling full field dumpflood prospects. Shallower B
sands source reservoir at about 4000ftss is at hydrostatic
pressure, while the target reservoir at about 8000ftss was
initially hydrostatic but has depleted by 800 psi. The
pressure and gravity differential will allow water to fall
from the source to target reservoir to maintain pressure
and sweep the oil to currently producing and closed in oil
wells that will be re-opened.
A 3D geological model was built and upscaled to the
dynamic model where good history match was achieved
at well and reservoir levels. Thereafter, predictions were
made over a range of realizations and sensitivities
including Aquifer Strength, Number and Location of
Water Dumpers, Dumping Rates, GOR and Oil Recovery
while maintaining reservoir pressure at 2650 psig. Inflow
and outflow sensitivities were also done on Well Types
and Completion Tubing Sizes taking cognizance of
Injectivity Indices recorded in the Pilot Well.
Feasibility and concept selection studies confirmed that
full field water dump flood can be deployed by drilling 6
additional dumpers, re-opening 6 of the shut in oil wells
and drilling an infill oil well for optimal hydrocarbon
recovery. This development strategy is expected to
achieve a longer plateau thereby increasing oil and gas
production rate by 400% to yield 62% recovery factor. It
is not intended to pull the reservoir to the peak level to
avoid a repeat of past performance. Well and Reservoir
Surveillance/Management (WRM) will be achieved
through placement of Downhole Flowmeters and Pressure
Gauges in the dump flood wells. The 30 Mbpd
flowstation in Egbema West to handle additional liquid on
surface and a dedicated Associated Gas Gathering Plant
would be installed to export compressed gas to the nearby
power plant undergoing construction at Egbema. This
SPE 140634
project therefore, has a strategic fit for Domestic Gas
Supply to meet Nigeria’s Energy demand.
Egbema West ‘D’ Reservoir History
The ‘D’ reservoir production was initially as high as
32Mbopd from 15 drainage points as at 1974 however;
reservoir pressure declined rapidly from 3452 t0 2650
psig. Analyses of production data showed that the
reservoir has weak aquifer support. The reservoir also has
a primary gas cap that began to expand at the onset of
pressure decline, leading to HGOR recorded in some
wells. The wells were shut for 5 years to conserve energy
and allow the gas cap to recede. Individual well
recoveries prior to reservoir shut in can be correlated with
sand quality distribution in the reservoir as illustrated by
the red bubbles on the Net Pore Volume Map, Figure1.
Sand quality deteriorates from North to the South West.
Understanding this is key to successful dump flooding.
Figure 2 shows the production and pressure profiles of the
‘D’ reservoir. The red line is the oil rate, the green is
GOR, blue line is the water cut and dotted points are the
pressure data from the wells in the reservoir. Since initial
shut in during 1981, further production from the reservoir
has been reduced to maintain the voidage replacement
from weak aquifer in order to keep the reservoir pressure
at 2650 psig and prevent further shrinkage losses. The
pilot dumpflood supports the reservoir at the current
production rate of 3 Mbopd from 2 wells.
Figure 1: Net Pore Volume Map, First 4 prod years
Figure 2: Production and Pressure Profiles of ‘D’ reservoir
Water Dumpflood Pilot Scheme
The pilot dump flood Well P1 was placed at the eastern
flank of the structure, right in the waterleg. Initially
drilled in 1991 as an appraisal well that found the ‘D’
reservoir fully water bearing, the well was suspended due
to stuck coring assembly although some core was
3 Application of Natural Water Dumpflood in a Depleted Reservoir for Oil and Gas Recovery SPE 140634

recovered. The well was later sidetracked in 1997 with a

6” hole drilled to TD at 9110ftah. A 4-1/2” predrilled
liner was set across the ‘D’ complex from 8867- 9067 ftah
with a sump of 43ft; thereafter the well was completed as
a Single String Single dumpflood injector with IGP
installed over a total of 134ft perforations (4680-4710,
4716-4750, 4760-4770 & 4780-4840 ftah across the
shallower ’A’-sand (Water producing) complex.

Monitoring of Dumpflood Rates. Water inflow and

dumping rate has been monitored using Memory
Production Logging Tool (MPLT) logs. Three logs have
been taken since 1997 mainly due to inaccessibility to
wells in the area for various reasons. All the logs were
Figure 3: Pressure profiles showing the effect of the
taken after sand bailing and washing. PLT results are
dumpflood well.
shown on Table 1.
Injectivity and Sand Control Challenges. Sand
MPLT Dump Rates MPLT#3
MPLT#1 MPLT#2 problems initially attributed to the shallower ‘A’ sands
(B Source Sand) Aug 16, Aug 19,
Sept 4, Feb 16, 2000 2000 were recorded at various times the the dump flood well.
1997 1999
‘A’
Run#1 Run#2
Flowrate (BWPD) 2100 3000 2500 1450
Sieve analysis of bailed sample later revealed that the
*Press (PSIA) 2077 2079 2113 . 2122 sand came from the ‘D’ reservoir probably due to sand
*Temperature 128. 145 131 131
(Deg.F)
influx after perforation, coupled with absence of an
MPLT Dump Rates MPLT#4 effective sand control mechanism. This kind of sand
( GTarget Sand) Aug 16, Aug 19,
2000 2000 influx has been seen in some injection wells in Statoil that
Run#1 Run#2 suffered ’Hammer Effect’ during shut downs. Sand was
Flowrate (BWPD) N/A N/A 1470 1410
*Press(PSIA) N/A N/A 3550. 3580.
found to have built up in the wellbore on re-opening,
‘D’
*Temperature N/A N/A 139. 140. thereby reducing injectivity. Similar injectivity reduction
(Deg.F)
was observed from PLT results in Egbema West Well P1.
The well was re-entered in January 1999 to improve
Table 1: Rates measured from MPLT dumprate by perforating 30ft of the pre-drilled liner and
Hold up Depth was tagged at 8969 ftah. Sand was cleaned
Effect of Dumpflooding. Effect of the pilot dumpflood out from 8970-9091 ft thereafter the Pre-drilled liner was
on the reservoir pressure is illustrated in Figure 3. The perforated from 8920-8950ftah. The lower injectivity has
pressure measurements after September 1997 indicate that been factored into performance prediction for the
pressure in the ‘D’ reservoir is being maintained by the proposed dumpers while a more effective sand control
pilot dumpflood well. A review of the production profiles mechanism has been proffered for both the producing and
shows that the production is being gradually ramped up dumping sand faces.
post 1997 while the pressure remains stable indicating
that the pilot dumpflood well is injecting water into the
reservoir. Further evaluation was carried out using a
Evaluation of Fullfield Dumpflooding
simulation model. The model was history matched using Application of full field dumpflooding has been evaluated
all the production and pressure data and afterwards, the through reservoir and well modelling.
pilot dumpflood was removed from the model, the effects
on pressure and production were evaluated. The pressure Pressure Analyses and WRM Practices. Pressure
showed a steeper decline when the dumpflood well was measurements were taken in the ‘D’ reservoir from wells
removed as compared to historical pressure and the situated in different parts of the reservoir. The results
pressure simulated with dumpflood well in place. The have been used to evaluate the level of reservoir
production profile with dumpflood suggested that about connectivity and to ensure effective and efficient injection
33% hydrocarbon recovery would have been lost if the process. Analyses show a uniform decline, which suggest
pilot dumpflood well was not available. This clearly that there is good areal and vertical pressure
confirmed that the pilot dumpflood well is effective in communication across the reservoir, also supported by
maintaining the pressure in ‘D’ reservoir. fluid contacts seen in the wells. This is essential for
efficient pressure maintenance and good reservoir sweep.
Figure 3 depicts the historical ‘D’ pressure profile.
Additionally, the pressure trend indicated a rapid decline
with respect to withdrawal suggesting the presence of
weak aquifer.

Review of Flowing and Closed in Wells. Analyses of

well behaviour and integrity confirms that 6 out of the 13
4 C.O. Osharode, F. Kareem, G. Erivona, M. Nnadi
currently closed in oil wells can be re-opened for
production once full field dumpflooding is achieved.
Table 2 shows the expected rate from each well based on
simulation and historical Productivity Indices (PI)
Unconstrained Recommended Bean size
Wells rate (bopd) rate (bopd) (I/64")
F1 4600 3100 44
F2 5000 2000 34
F3 4843 4100 56
F4 3427 2000 36
F5 3390 1500 30
F6 3350 2000 36
Table2: Expected oil rate for closed-in wells
Reservoir Modeling. The Egbema-west ‘D’ reservoir is a
rollover anticline structure, bounded to the north by a
major synthetic growth fault and dissected by a number of
smaller synthetic and antithetic faults. The eastern flank
of the reservoir was eroded by the post-‘D’ incised
channel and infilled with clay as seen in well F01. The
channel margin on the ‘D reservoir was mapped on
seismic from both impedance and reflectivity seismic
volumes as shown on Figure 9. The top and base traces of
the channel were combined with the horizon maps to form
the 3D structural closure of the Egbema West ‘D’
reservoir. The geological features are correlatable and
were well captured in the static model.
Dynamic Modelling. The dynamic modelling was carried
out using the static model comprising of 100m by 100m
cells with fine vertical layering to capture accurate
saturation and pressure changes in the reservoir. The
reservoir model was initialized under hydrostatic
conditions with initial reservoir data to replicate the
reservoir initial conditions. The model was then calibrated
and history match was achieved by adjusting relative
permeability and aquifer strength and size. There is
limited water production in the reservoir and only five
wells have experienced water breakthrough and good
match was obtained on water cut versus time. An
acceptable history match was obtained on the GOR versus
time and cumulative gas production versus time.
Satisfactory match was achieved on all the wells and
reservoir between historical and simulated pressure and
this is within 30 psi difference. The history match profiles
are shown in Figure 4. The red is the oil match; green is
GOR, blue is water cut and black is the average reservoir
pressure match.
SPE 140634
Figure 4: ‘D’ Reservoir History Match
The fluid distribution at the end of the history match
shows that the gas cap has expanded significantly
however; a substantial amount on the recoverable oil is
left in the reservoir (see Figure 5).
Initial Condition  End of history  match
Water encroachment
from dumpflood well
Gas cap expansion due
pressure depletion
Figure 5: Fluid distuibution showing contacts movement
between initial time and end of history match.
Screening of existing oil wells for open up. The 13
closed in wells were screened base on the predicted
performance and total oil recovery and incremental
recovery. Figure 6 shows the bar chart of the recoveries
by individual wells. The green bars represent the
recoveries for the wells that are currently producing from
the reservoir and these well will continue producing in the
prediction. The red bars indicate the recoveries from the
wells that require workover for water and/or gas shut-off
activities. The risk associated with the workover activities
precluded the wells from being used in the prediction
mode. The amber bars represent the recoveries for the
wells recommended for open up to recover the remaining
oil in the reservoir. The dotted points on the plots depict
the creaming of the recoveries from all the wells. The
result of this analysis shows that the reservoir can be
optimally drained with four to six wells depending on
how aggressive the development plan is. Six wells have
been recommended for open up in the forward sensitivity
mode. The well positions are shown on Figure 9.
5 Application of Natural Water Dumpflood in a Depleted Reservoir for Oil and Gas Recovery SPE 140634

Egbema West Wells Recoveries Well Count Creaming Curve

22. 100 180

20. 90 170

18. 160
Cumulative Well Recoveries, MMstb

80

Ultimate Recovery
16. 150
70
14. Cum Well Recoveries 140
60

Well Recoveries, MMstb

130
12.
50 120
10.
110
40
8. 100
30
6. 90

4. 20 80
NFD Open 6 wells Open 6+1 wells Open 6+2 wells
2. 10
0. 0
F1 F2 C1 F3 F5 P2 P3 F4 F6 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
Wells Figure 8: Well Count Creaming curve
Figure 6: Oil recoveries comparison for well screening
Oil Well Type and Count Sensitivities. Conventional
and horizontal well types were evaluated to test the infill
well type that would efficiently drain the remaining oil on
the eastern flank of the reservoir. The comparison of
recoveries and cost of the horizontal and vertical wells are
shown in Figure 7. Conventional well is recommended for
further oil development on the eastern flank of the
reservoir.
 
V e rtical V s Horizontal w e ll

25.0
We ll Re co v e ry, M M stb

20.0
We ll Co st, $M ln Figure 9: ‘D’ Top Structure Map showing wells and incised
Channel
Well Recoveries and Cost

15.0

10.0
Performance Prediction
Lift tables covering the expected range of operating
5.0
conditions for 3 ½” and 4 ½” tubings, were generated and
- used in dynamic simulation model. The parameters
Vertical W ell Horizontal W ell
considered in generating the well models include the
flowing tubing head pressure (FTHP), GOR, water cut
Figure 7: Comparison between Conventional and and rates and ranges were set to cover the observed and
Horizontal Wells anticipated ranges in the reservoir.
The impact of well count on the performance of target
reservoir was evaluated. The development options Dumpflood Performance Prediction
considered include: New dumpflood wells were located optimally on the
reservoir periphery to inject at the aquifer leg in the
• No futher development (NFA) aquifer influx direction for good sweep. The wells are
• Open 6 well shut-in wells expected to commence dumping water ahead of re-
• Open 6 well shut-in wells + 1 new oil opening of oil wells to create fill-up. The wells were
• Open 6 well shut-in wells + 2 new oil adequately constrained in the model to generate forecasts
for the ‘D’ reservoir. Simulation results show oil
Results show a marginal increase in UR beyond opening production from the reservoir will increase by a factor of
6 wells + 1 new well count. Going from one new well 4. A 62% recovery factor is expected from prediction and
count to two new wells gives only a 1% incremental UR. the incremental production profiles are shown in Figure
The well-count creaming curve for the ‘D’ reservoir is 10. The 3D fluid saturation distribution in Figure 11
shown in Figure 8. illustrates the oil sweep at the start and end of prediction.
Subsurface Uncertainties were also tested to establish
impact on hydrocarbon in-place and recoverable volumes.
The results are shown on Table 3.
6 C.O. Osharode, F. Kareem, G. Erivona, M. Nnadi SPE 140634

Figure 10: ‘D’ Base Case production forecast for the

selected concept
Figure 12: Inflow/Outflow Plot
End of History End of Prediction

Dump rates (bwpd)

Well 31/2" tubing size 41/2" tubing size
Name Prosper Prosper
Factor Factor
Predicted Predicted
applied applied
rate rate
P2 8000 4000 9500 4750
P3 9000 4500 10800 5400
P4 7800 3900 9500 4750
P5 8000 4000 9500 4750
P6 7700 3850 9500 4750
P7 8000 4000 9500 4750
Figure 11: 3D Fluid distribution comparison Table 4: Predicted dumprate for two tubing sizes
between start and end of prediction.
Sustainability of Source Aquifer. Compatibility tests on
water samples collected from the source aquifer (’A’-
sands) and the ‘D’ reservoir yielded positive results
therefore, ‘A’ would remain the main source aquifer.
Material balance with MBAL indicated that about
7MMbbls of water had been dumped by end 2007.
Possibility of the ‘A’ complex being an finite or infinite
aquifer was evaluated and predictions show that ‘A’ can
serve as water source for the next 38 years in either cases,
Table 3: Summary of uncertainty analysis at dump rates of 25 Mbwpd. The Liquid and Pressure
Profiles (Forecast) are shown on Figure 13. The blue line
Inflow and Outflow Prediction. PROSPER models is water dumped; amber is oil and water produced while
were created for the dumpflood wells by setting up two the black is pressure profile.
well models WATER INJECTOR and WATER
Profiles for Pressure, Dumpflood
PRODUCER for nodal analysis. The first well rate and Liquid production rate

represented the upper zone (water producer) natural

flowing well with tubing length of only 100ft. The second
well represented the lower layer (injection interval)
serving as an injector well with a tubing length equal to
the distance (true vertical depth) from the water-
producing ’A’- reservoir to the ‘D’ reservoir where water
is being injected. This system solution gives the dumping
rate of the well and the flowing bottom hole pressure.
Permeability measured from the P1 ‘D’ sand core was
applied to the Darcy reservoir model method used. For
model calibration, the ideal dump rate and PI for the Figure 13: Pressure, Dumprate and Liquid Forecasts
existing well P1 dumpflood was modelled and compared
with actual values measured from PLT. A Well Completion Technology
productivity/injectivity reduction factor of 0.5 was
The completions philosophy of the Egbema West wells is
calculated and applied to the ideal dumprates predicted
centred on maximising recovery at minimal costs,
for the new wells and sensitivities were done for 31/2”
minimising well intervention and attaining optimal
and 41/2” tubing sizes. The results of the modelling are
dumpflood performance.
shown in Figure12 and Table 4.
7 Application of Natural Water Dumpflood in a Depleted Reservoir for Oil and Gas Recovery
Sand Control. Sand production is expected from both the
source and target sand completions. For the non uniform
and poorly sorted sand quality seen in the field, the
feasible sand control options are gravel pack and
Expandable Sand Screen (ESS). ESS was selected for
both the producing and injecting zones for the following
reasons.
ƒ ESS provides gravel pack functionality with the
simplicity of a stand-alone screen at reduced
cost.
ƒ The expansion of the ESS and the resultant large
area facilitates a low completion skin.
ƒ ESS generally has larger internal diameter than
IGP and leaves room for larger tubing sizes and
installation of downhole devices.
Tubing Size Selection. Tubing size sensitivities results
presented in Table 4 show that the 4-1/2” tubing does not
yield significant improvement in dumprates over the 3-
1/2” tubing when the reduction factor is applied.
Although, completing the dumpflood wells with 4½”
tubing is achievable, the OD of the 4½” flowmeter is 6.5
inches, larger than the maximum ID of the ESS hanger
(6.184 inches). This restricts the size of the flowmeter
option to 31/2 “(OD of 5.5inches), hence the dumpflood
wells will be completed with 31/2” tubing.
Downhole Flowmeters and Pressure Gauges. For
effective Well and Reservoir Management, the dump
flood wells will be completed with downhole flow meters
for continuous monitoring of dump rates. Pressure gauges
will also be installed. This will guarantee timely data
acquisition; early intervention hence, reduced deferment.
Well Integrity and Deliverability. Integrity checks will
be carried out on all shut in wells prior to re-, opening and
remedial actions will be applied where necessary to
forestall well failures. Economic evaluation of replacing a
failed well with a new one yielded positive NPVs. The
option of using inverted ESPs will be evaluated further if
dumpflood seizes in any well.
Surface Facilities
The existing 30 MMbpd flowstation in Egbema West will
handle the incremental gross production from the oil wells
through newly installed flowlines. The produced gas at
about 25 MMscf/d will be compressed by an Associated
Gas (AG) gathering Plant to be installed close to the
flowstation. Combined with AG from other Egbema West
wells, the compressed gas will be delivered to the Egbema
Power Plant already under construction by NIPP. Gas
delivery specification and agreements are under
discussion and the gas will be used to generate power to
meet part of Nigeria’s increasing energy demand.
SPE 140634
Conclusions
The pilot water dumpflood scheme in Egbema West has
proved effective and can be applied on a full field scale.
Performance analyses of the pilot well confirm that
dumping is continuous even with sand build up across the
injection zone in the wellbore. Pressure measurements
taken after 12 years shows clearly that further decline was
arrested with the onset of dumpflooding.
Increased dumpflooding can be achieved either by drilling
fewer number of high rate dumpers or higher number of
average rate dumpers. The latter is preferred for the
purpose of wider well spread and dumping performance
monitoring, a key to success. Good understanding of
reservoir architecture and sedimentology is also critical
for optimal well placement.
Sand control is necessary in both source and target
completion zones to minimise impairment and well
intervention. Successful Water dumpflood is a more
attractive alternative to Surface Water Injection where
applicable.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the management of
SPDC and NPDC for their support to this publication.
Other members of the SPDC and NPDC joint team that
worked on the post pilot scheme integrated studies
namely; Olusola Oladipo,, Iyke Nnoaham, Adrian
Okpere, Kingsley Adowei, George Otoh, Reginald
Ndukwe, Chike Nwonodi, Ibianga Sukubo, Wasiu
Ajibowo, Seyi Adekoya, Tosan Chigbo, Gogo Eneyok,
Akam Somadina, Mark Anukwu, Mani Muthukrishna,
Olaniyi Otaiku, Habeeb Ajibola, Usman Mohammed,
Chidi Nkazi, Vincent Nwabueze and Oladipo Olanrewaju
are also fully acknowledge.
References
1. Egbema West ‘D’ Dump flood Feasibility Study
SPDC (May 1994)
2. Egbema West ‘D’ Reservoir Development Plan,
SPDC (2009)
3. R. Quttanair and E. Al-Maraghi, Kuwait Oil Co.
Umm Gudair Production Plateau Extension, “The
Applicability of FullField Dumpflood Injection to
Maintain Reservoir Pressure and Extend Production
Plateau”. Paper, SPE 97624, presented at the SPE
International Conference in Asia Pacific held in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5 - 6 December 2005.