SPE-177695-MS

Field Development Plan Optimization for Tight Carbonate Reservoirs

Mohand Alyan, John Martin, and Drew Irwin, Zakum Development Company

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9 –12 November 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper describes the simulation study done on optimizing the field development plans for undeveloped
tight carbonate reservoirs with limited production history and surveillance data. The successful imple-
mentation of a water injectivity pilot test has enabled waterflood as a recovery method in the low
permeability carbonate reservoir. The field optimization consists of three major components: well
orientation, spacing and wellbore placement.
Based on this study, a data collection program was proposed to target the uncertainties associated with
developing the assets. The first part of the study focuses on the proper orientation of wells considering the
factors of thermal fractures mitigation, developing the highest oil in place and ease of well drillability. The
second part is concerned on studying the optimum spacing for achieving the target rate while maintaining
an effective water displacement performance. The third part involved studying the well’s placement for
achieving a high rate early on during the production build-up while maximizing recovery in the long term.
The combination of these three parts has led improved understanding of the important uncertainties
associated with the reservoir which will be targeted in the ongoing appraisal program.

Introduction
In order to create an economically optimized development plan, a study was required to test the various
options for developing the field. This was done by determining an optimized well layout that will
maximize the recovery from the field and depleting the reserves in reasonable time fame. Additionally,
the production rate must achieve a target production rate by a specified date.
The reservoir area to be developed is large and adequate consideration of the possible development
scenarios is needed. This paper explains and discusses the process used to study and optimize well
orientation, spacing and well placement options to achieve the previously mentioned challenges using
Reservoir A as an example.

Background
The subject reservoir is located offshore in the Middle East. The stacked carbonate reservoir is deposited
in continuous layers across the whole field without significant discontinuities. There is degradation in
reservoir permeability trending to the west. The field was initially developed starting in the east following
the trend of higher rock quality. The average horizontal permeability in the western part of the field is
2 SPE-177695-MS

approximately 1-5 md compared to 50 md in the east. Figure 1 shows the permeability map of the
reservoir with the circled area representing the west part.

Figure 1—Permeability map of the reservoir

The attempts to develop the western part using vertical and deviated wells failed due to rapidly
declining productivity. Development was not encouraging due to the significant amount of capital
expenditure and the lack of drilling technology to improve productivity and injectivity. Now, with the
company’s strategy to construct artificial islands (1, 2) for optimized field development and with the
deployment of long horizontal wells (3), the opportunity to develop the West appears to be more attractive.
Sparse static and dynamic well data, e.g. production, injection, cores, logs, etc., significantly impact the
range of uncertainty in terms of reservoir characterization and expected production profile.
Optimization Process Description
The optimization process consisted of three parts to assess and optimize the field development plan. The
outcome of this process is to define the impact of well parameters on the range of forecast results and
optimize the FDP to achieving a set of well-defined criteria. After that, a data collection plan is set to
narrow the range of outcomes and reduce the risk on the capital investment.
The first step of the study considered the orientation of the wells being drilled from the artificial island
with respect to the subject reservoir. This needs to be addressed in the field development plan considering
the different well design options and the impact of thermal fracture growth.
The second part considered the optimum well spacing to achieve an efficient waterflood and pressure
support which can sustain a reasonable depletion rate while achieving an acceptable unit drilling cost
(UDC $/bbl.). The analysis will be heavily impacted by the ability of the selected development to build
to and sustain an oil production rate with an acceptable plateau life.
The third part considered all the possible options of well placements within the reservoir (vertical well
placement options within the thick reservoir section). The number of cases considered is significant with
SPE-177695-MS 3

~150 well placement options being considered in simulation models. Small sector models were extracted
from the full field model to reduce the computation time. The sector model results were used to validate
full-field model cases by comparing the results.
This process also involves an economic analysis of the different plans in terms of the number and
design of expected wells. The different plans were screened and analyzed to determine the most promising
plan in meeting the design criteria. This lead to a data collection program that is specifically constructed
to address the key uncertainties in the development plan, narrow the range of probable outcomes and
reduce risk on capital investment.

Sector Model Description

A sector model representing the west part of the reservoir was extracted from the full-field model to
conduct runs on well layout, design options and the impact of geologic properties uncertainties. The
full-field model was obtained after history matching performance which occurs mainly in the east part of
the reservoir (4). The lack of available well and production information in the west of the reservoir
significantly impacts the range of uncertainty in reservoir quality and well performance.
The reservoir model consists of six main geologic zones separated by stylolite layers. All zones are
limestone except for the middle section of Zone 5 which is a dolostone layer and Zone 6 which is
mudstone layer. Figure 2 shows a porosity representation of reservoir zones separated by stylolites layers.

Figure 2—Porosity log representation of reservoir A

All cases contain wells drilled as single lateral horizontal wells with 10,000 ft. producing liners. A
cartesian type grid with a simulation block size of 50m X 50m was used in the developed area of the
reservoir. This was done to ensure sufficient number of grid blocks between wells for accurate assessment
of different well spacings. The chosen grid size was determined after conducting a sensitivity study. The
study found 50m grid blocks gave realistic water breakthrough times while not excessively slowing down
the simulator run time. The grid was aligned with the field development wells preventing grid orientation
effects during assessment of different well orientations from effecting the results. Figure 3 shows an
overview of the sector model used.
4 SPE-177695-MS

Figure 3—Overview of sector model used

The controls imposed on wells were:

1. producers are operated at a minimum WHP of 120 psi with gas lift injection being implemented
at a specified date with an injection gas rate of 1.5 MMSCF/day
2. Injectors are operated at a maximum BHP of 5500 psi.
3. In terms of global controls, production was constrained to the target oil rate by decreasing each
well’s rate proportionally.

Well Optimal Orientation

Several different well orientations were considered in the study. The design of the reservoir completions
were limited by two drilling imposed constraints:
● A maximum heel landing point at 6700m.
● A maximum throw of 9700m.
The assessment considerations used in this evaluation are:
● Orient wells to benefit from the underlying geology: In this regard, there was no impact on well
performance by changing orientation as the geology concept defined in the developed area has no
significant preference of enhanced petrophysical properties in one direction over another. This
development is consistent with the eastern part of the reservoirwhich is fully developed and has
a long history of production. The only trend is of decreasing rock quality moving to west of the
reservoir. Previous well tests conducted have shown that faults do not communicate vertically with
other reservoirs and thus can be crossed with wellbores. Although not influencing the orientation,
the higher permeability in the eastern portion of the reservoir will result in this area being
developed first to speed production buildup.
● Orient wells to develop maximum OOIP: Several different orientations were tested to evaluate
the OOIP that can be developed with the imposed drilling constraints. Some results can be found
in Table 1 which shows comparison of different scenarios versus a base case of E-W well
orientation being implemented.
SPE-177695-MS 5

Table 1—Comparison of % OOIP contacted over base case for different orientations
Orientation % Increase in OOIP Developed

East West (Base) 0%

Parallel to faults 7%
N 30 E 10%

● Orient wells to improve drillability from artificial island: The wells in each orientation were
categorized by their ease of drilling consulting with the drilling department as some orientations
will have a large number of difficult wells that are categorized by their sharp 3D turn with angles
more than 600. Overall, as the development proceeds there will be improvement in drilling
performance and more challenging wells will be able to be drilled. Hence, there was a decision to
place the most challenging wells towards the end of the drilling program but test step-outs in
technology in the appraisal program. As an example, some orientations will require drilling
through faults and this is to be tested by an appraisal well for any potential drilling difficulty. Since
more than one reservoir will be developed from the island, care has to be taken to avoid
anti-collision with wells to be drilled into other reservoirs. Hence the development must be well
planned with all future wells included in the drilling plan.
● Mitigate the potential of thermal fractures for connectivity between wells: As closer well
spacing is assessed, care has to be taken to prevent any potential thermal fracture growth which
might connect producers and injectors. Drilling perpendicular to the fracture orientation creates the
potential for water injection to short circuit directly to the producing well through a fracture. The
plan is to drill at a skewed angle from fracture orientation to allow thermal fractures to potentially
enhance the injector’s injectivity but increase the distance between the injectors and producers
along the preference fracture orientation to mitigate any connection. Figure 4 shows a selected well
orientation with regards to the fracture growth orientation for a well spacing of 250m.

Figure 4 —Direction of well orientation with respect to fracture orientation

After finishing all the criteria assessment, it was concluded that a N33W orientation would satisfy the
proposed criteria by developing the most OOIP, improving drillability from island and mitigating thermal
fracture risk. That option requires drilling across mapped faults which will be tested in an appraisal well.
Well Optimal Spacing
The second part of the optimization addresses the different well spacing options ranging from 500m to
250m, in order to maximize the recovery and reach and sustain a reasonable plateau production level for
6 SPE-177695-MS

a significant period of time. Waterflooding was selected as a cost effective depletion mechanism.
Concerns were raised on how effective waterflood pressure support would be in a tight reservoir and what
the well spacing is needed to achieve good pressure support. Oil recovery by water displacement depends
on the effectiveness of good pressure support and having a stable uniform displacement. In all spacings
tested, the injectors were placed close to the base reservoir in the relatively thin high permeability
dolomite layer while the producers were placed near the top of the reservoir displacement efficiency.
The main objectives for the production profile are to achieve a minimum of annual depletion rate of
0.7% of OOIP/year and sustain the target depletion rate for a period of 25 years. A secondary criterion
is to achieve a reasonable incremental drilling UDC cost. The incremental UDC is based on the additional
oil recovery and additional capital required to develop on closer spacings. Three spacings were tested with
results showing that a spacing of 250m best fits the intended guidelines. Figure 5 shows oil and water
production rates versus time for all spacings tested.

Figure 5—Oil and water production rates versus time for different spacings

The poor performance at wider spacings is due to the poorer pressure support at the producers which
results in declining oil rates after initial production (a consequence of the low permeability). For the
different spacings considered, the injector rates were the limiting factors as injectors cannot maintain
voidage initially In the long term, as water reaches the producers in the wider spacings, injectivity
improves as water forms a continuous phase improving mobility.
In investigating the model flood displacement behavior, it was found that in all spacings the injected
water floods the lower layers early on due to the high permeability dolomite layer low in the reservoir
section and gravity effects. The displacement process displayed in the figures below exhibits some
characteristics of both horizontal and vertical displacement. As the well spacing is increased it takes a
longer time for water to reach producers under the same drawdown conditions and the flow becomes more
gravity dominated. Figure 6 shows the time lapse cross sections of water saturation for a 250m well
spacing.
SPE-177695-MS 7

Figure 6 —Water saturation cross sections for 250m Well spacing

To study the implication of different well spacing on ultimate oil recovery and understand the physics
of reservoir flow without well management masking effects, several constraints were eased which are:
● Opening all wells, producers and injectors, at the same time to remove the well schedule impact.
● Running with different group constraints: a specified target rate representing 0.7 annual depletion
rate and a maximum potential rate per spacing.
● All cases were run for an extended period of ~270 years beyond any reasonable facility life (~100
years is the design life of artificial islands).
The results showed that with closer spacing and increased field rates, oil production is accelerated with
no impact on the expected ultimate recovery. So the ultimate recovery of all spacings will converge to a
common value after operating for a long period of time (~ 270 years). This is shown in Figure 7 which
depicts a plot of oil production rate and water oil ratio (WOR) versus oil cumulative per spacing at
different depletion rates.
8 SPE-177695-MS

Figure 7—Oil production rate and WOR versus Oil cumulative per spacing at different target rates

After considering the different spacing scenarios against the goals of meeting the target depletion rate,
sustainment of the rate, and incremental UDC, the 250m spacing development best met the development
goals. Although the well count increases with 250m spacing, further well count optimization can take
place through the use of multilateral drilling and/or extending the length of the laterals in excess of 10,000
ft.

Well Optimal Placement

The third part in the process was focused on well design and completion e.g. placements within the
reservoir and single versus vertically aligned multilaterals. The objective of the design is to maximize the
oil recovery per well by testing all possible placements. The assessment considered the critical geologic
properties of the reservoir with high uncertainties and their impact on well performance (such as
degradation of stylolite vertical permeability). These geologic uncertainties have to be addressed jointly
with geologists to determine the expected range of properties. Due to the short time available for the
project, it was decided to use multipliers when modifying the properties to preserve the heterogeneity in
the model that represents the expected range of petrophysical characterization of the area.
In assessing optimized well placement, all possible placements for both single and/or vertically aligned
multilateral wells in the different 5 zones of the reservoir were tested. Figure 8 shows the range of
different placements used for single/ vertically aligned multilaterals wells.
SPE-177695-MS 9

Figure 8 —Different well placements for single and vertically aligned multilaterals wells

To assess this large number of cases a small sector model was used that is representative of the geology
in the area to be developed to increase the computational speed. The sector model contains three wells,
two injectors and one producer tested at the optimized spacing of 250m. Figure 9 shows a cross section
of the model horizontal permeability in the sector model.

Figure 9 —Overview of Sector Horizontal permeability in the reservoir

After running and analyzing all the scenarios, the optimal location for injectors is to target the thin high
permeability dolomite layer close to the base of the reservoir (Zone 5). Table 2 shows the results of some
cases in terms of percentage difference from the highest case with oil recovery after 30 years in the
scenarios of single producer and single injector. The highlighted red box represents the scenario with
highest oil recovery overall.
10 SPE-177695-MS

Table 2—% Difference from highest oil recovery after 30 years

Regarding the producers, the optimum location for the placement of wells would be in Zone 2 close
to the reservoir top. The higher recovery obtained in this position is due to high KH in Zone 2 which
increases the productivity of wells. In terms of flood displacement a producer placed near the top of the
reservoir increases recovery in this reservoir where gravity plays a significant role as displacement is slow
due to lower permeability.
In regards to performance of a single versus vertically aligned multilaterals wells, it was found that due
to the lack of any barriers between the different zones, there are minor production differences between the
two well types. The explanation of this performance is that in reservoirs with a good vertical communi-
cation there is little additional recovery for multilaterals wells due to relatively short distance between
laterals compared to well spacing. The interference between the laterals results in little to no additional
recovery. Figure 10 shows a schematic of single lateral producer versus vertically aligned multilateral
producer.

Figure 10 —schematic of single lateral producer versus vertically aligned multilateral producer

The vertically aligned dual-laterals increase recovery compared to single laterals in the sector models
when two different geologic zones are separated by a barrier stylolite layer. The dual lateral well aids in
depleting oil from all zones versus only selective zones when using a single lateral. A proper character-
ization of local geology is needed before deciding on the completion of wells as it is influential in terms
of the incremental oil production obtained.
SPE-177695-MS 11

The small sector results were confirmed by the larger west sector model. As part of testing geologic
uncertainties in terms of stylolites vertical permeability impact on producer well placement, several runs
were made using the west sector model. Figure 11 shows a comparison of oil production rate between the
base case and a modified case for different producer placements where the permeability of stylolite
separating Zone 1 & Zone 2 was reduced by a 0.01 multiplier

Figure 11—Comparison between base case and stylolite reduced case for different placements

There is a significant impact of stylolite Kv on oil production as there was a 22% and 9% reduction
in cumulative oil produced after 50 years compared to base case for producers completed in Zone 1 and
Zone 2 respectively. The large impact of stylolite permeability on oil production justified the collection
of data from an appraisal well. This data will be used in modeling stylolite vertical permeability in the
geologic model as actual producer well placement will depend upon local geology.
12 SPE-177695-MS

Appraisal program
All of the preceding optimization analysis has highlighted key learnings that need to be validated which
are:
● Reaching the target depletion rate and sustaining it will require proceeding with a 250m well
spacing. This result is driven mainly from the underlying reservoir geologic properties which have
a significant impact on oil production.
● Attaining higher recovery per well due to optimized well placement in the reservoir will depend
upon local geology and the reservoir connectivity through the stylolites layers.
● Achieving intended target profile within specified time will depend upon optimizing well lengths
and/or designs; as well as accelerating the drilling experience gained.
Based on the above points, the following action plan will address the main uncertainties as part of an
appraisal program of 5 wells located as shown in Figure 12 to mitigate FDP associated uncertainties and
to improve model predictability:

Figure 12—Location of appraisal program data collection wells

● Assessing reservoir properties (Kv & Kh) through core analysis and appraisal wells productivity
and injectivity test at different parts of the reservoir. All wells will serve that purpose.
● Assessing stylolite vertical permeability through piloting two dedicated appraisal well (Well 1 and
Well 2) and testing pressure response through the different stylolite and reservoir layers.
● Conducting well spacing pilot tests to verify selected spacing and effective pressure support
towards producers. This will be verified through wells 1, 3 and 5.
● Conducting well placement assessment for producers in Zone 2 (Wells 3 and 5) and injectors in
Zone 5 (Well 1) to test productivity and injectivity and any potential pitfalls.
SPE-177695-MS 13

● Testing of drillability through a known mapped fault by extending the tip of an appraisal well
(Well 3) through it.
Table 3 below gives a summary of the key objective for each one of the appraisal wells.

Table 3—Objectives of the appraisal wells

Well Name Key Objectives

Well 1 Confirms injectivity in heart of the west and aids in testing

pressure through stylolite layers.
Well 2 Pressure observation well in vertical pulse test to confirm flow through stylolite layers.
Well 3 Confirms productivity in heart of the west and drills through mapped faults.
Establishes 250 m spacing pilot.
Well 4 Confirms commercial productivity and injectivity in the step out location and
test inflow impact of Multi- stage fracturing.
Well 5 Tests ability to drill wells with MD greater than 35000= and sweep at
variable spacing between producer and injector laterals.

Conclusion
The implemented optimization process has resulted in identifying potential opportunities to maximize
production/recovery in the field through testing various orientations, spacings and placements of wells. It
has also quantified the impact of reservoir geologic uncertainties on production forecasts of various well
design options.
An appraisal program was defined to address the optimized well parameters and impact of geologic
uncertainties. This program will aid in updating the geologic and simulation models based on the appraisal
program results to reduce associated risk on investment. This optimization process has been used to define
optimized development plans for other reservoirs and derive their respective appraisal programs.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Zakum Development Company (ZADCO) Shareholders and management
for granting permission to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
FDP : Field Development Plan
UDC : Unit Drilling Cost
MRC : Maximum Reservoir Contact
OOIP : Original Oil in Place
ERD : Extended Reach Drilling
WOR : Water Oil Ratio
WHP : Well Head Pressure
BHP : Bottom Hole Pressure
STB : Stock Tank Barrel

References
1. Modavi, A., Martin, W.W., Muflehi, A.H., Walters, J.V., Ismail, G: ⬙Field development Expan-
sion of a Giant Oil Field in Abu Dhabi Using Artificial Islands as Drilling and Production Centers⬙
paper SPE 118379 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Confer-
ence, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 3-6, 2008.
2. Modavi, A., Khan, S.A., Khedr, O., Muta, T., Brantferger, K., Watanabe, M., Walters, J.V.,
14 SPE-177695-MS

Martin, W.W., Al Shabeeb, A.A., Al Marzouqi, M., ZADCO ⬙A conceptual Study for Managing
the Life of a Giant Offshore Oilfield in the UAE where Facilities and Infrastructure Mature ahead
of the Reservoir⬙, SPE 137542 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 1-4, 2010.
3. Mohamed Al Marzouqi, Osama Khedr, Wallace William Martin, Kenneth Brantferger, John
Victor Walters, Alfred Jackson: ⬙The Added Value of Piloting Maximum Reservoir Contact Wells
Prior to Large Scale Application to a Giant Offshore Carbonate Field⬙ SPE 148021- presented at
the SPE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference and Exhibition held in Abu
Dhabi, UAE, 9-11 October 2011.
4. Kenneth, M. Brantferger, Haitham Al-Jenaibi, Harshad Patel, Amal Saeed Al-Harbi, Gary
Kompanik, Magdi Ibrahim Mubarak (ZADCO) ⬙A Team-Based Approach to History Matching a
Long-History, Giant Carbonate Reservoir Using Sector Models and a Domain Decomposition
Workflow Terminology⬙ SPE 148386 presented at the SPE Reservoir Characterization and
Simulation Conference and Exhibition, 9-11 October, Abu Dhabi, UAE