ab geos 2012_rs final

Petroleum Development Oman1

Geological Controls on Waterflood Performance, an example from a field in South Oman

M.R.F. Shaikh, A.J.G. Faulkner, & Y. Al BusaidiPDO

Paper Number: 1178244


• Introduction• Field Summary

– AB Field Stratigraphy– Geology overview

• Facies and Pressure Trends in the AB Field– AB South and Far South Areas– AB Central and North Areas

• Water Injection within the Gharif– History– AB Northern Area and AB Southern Area

• Conclusions• Acknowledgements

– Asset team and MOG and PDO

Geological Controls on Waterflood Performance, an example from a field in South Oman


AB Field Background and Development outline• The AB field is located in South Oman• Comprised of four isolated accumulations • Multiple stacked reservoirs:

• Carboniferous-Permian Al Khlata• Permian Gharif • Mesozoic Kahmah Clastics.

• Initial development has targeted the Fluvial Gharif Fmn

• Gharif Formation consists of three members:• transitional marine/terrestrial basal member• two upper fluvial members.

• The AB FDP initiated an inverted 5-spot WI in August 1998 in the Northern Area of the field where all three Gharif members were observed to be well developed.

• The 5-spot WI trial resulted in a full field inverted 9-spot WI development over all four structures.

• On completion of all of the Gharif wells it is clear that the subsurface development of the Gharif Reservoir is not as homogeneous as modeled in the FDP

• It has been observed that reservoir connectivity within WI patterns is unable to sustain field production forecasts

• By mapping regions of high and low quality reservoir facies it has been possible to plan for future infill well locations in order to ensure that the WI goals are met for the AB Field.

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000m

1:45000


AB Field - Stratigraphy

The main AB Field reservoirs are the basal sands of the Mesozoic Clastic (THMC-A1) and the significantly older Haushi Sicilicastic of the Gharif and Al Khlata Formations. The base of the Al Khlata is unconformable upon the Cambrian Ara.

Age Group Formation Member Unit Sub-unitDepositional Environment

THMC-ATHMC-A1

Khuff Upper PTKFUKhuff Middle PTKFMKhuff Lower PTKFL

HSGHUHSGHU-1

HSGHM-2 HSGHM-2HSGHM-1BHSGHM-1A

HSGHL-3HSGHL-3.1HSGHL-3.2HSGHL-2

HSGHL-2.1HSGHL-1

HSGHL-1.1Rahab HSAK1R Glacio-Lacustrine

HSAK-1HSAK-5UHSAK-5LHSAK-9UHSAK-9MHSAK-9L

Cambrian Ara QA

HSAK P5

HSAK P9

Al Khlata Glacio-lacustrine/fluvialAl Khlata

Permo-

Carboniferous

Haushi

Arid/ephemeral fluvial

Arid/ephemeral Deltaic

Fluvial-Deltaic

Shallow Marine

Translittoral - Floodplane - lacustrine

HSAK P1

HSGHM-1Middle Gharif

HSGHL-3

HSGHL-2

HSGHL-1

Lower Gharif

PTKFKhuffAkhdarPermo- Triassic

HSGHUUpper Gharif

GharifPermian

UndifferentiatedMesozoicClastics

KahmahMesozoic THMC Fluvial - Deltaic- Paralic Tithonian &

Base Jurassic Unconformities

Hercynian,Early Devonian

&Angudan

Unconformities


Gharif Variations

ABJ-30H1 ABJ-36H1 ABJ-76H1ABJ-10H1 ABJ-68H1ABJ-71H1ABJ-9H1ABJ-33H2ABJ-31H2ABJ-22H1 ABJ-26H1ABJ-66H1 ABJ-49H1

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000Distance, [m]

-2000-1600

-1200-800

-200

0-1

600

-120

0-8

00

Z, [m]

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000Distance, [m]

-2000-1600

-1200-800

-200

0-1

600

-120

0-8

00

Z, [m]

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

-2200

-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-2200

-2000

-1800

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

MCAKhuffPTKFRPTKFCPTKFLGharifHSGHUHSGHM-2HSGHL-3HSGHL-2HSGHL-1Al KhlataHSAKRHSAK-1HSAK-5HSAK-9

Zones

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000m

1:45000

A B

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000m

1:45000

AB-SOUTH Area• UGh & MGh poor sand

development. • LGh very well developed in the

East of the Southern Area with good lateral continuity

• Strong LGh pressure communication in East of the Southern Area.

• LGh poorly developed in the West of the Southern Area, though are pressure depleted

AB-CENTRAL Area• UGh & MGh poor sand

development• LGh well developed in Northern

section of the Central Area, but worsens to the South.

• Lateral Continuity better in the North than the South This is also reflected in the pressure data.

AB-NORTH Area• UGh & MGh good sand

development • LGh poor sand development• Lateral continuity is evident

in all Gharif units.• Pressure communication in

the MGh and LGh across the Northern Area

A

B


G & G issues

Low NG sand High NG sand

Main Stacked Channel Fairway

Lower Gharif Channel Sands present but isolated

Axial Flow directionKh is expected to be higher parallel to the axial flow direction

Kh1 > Kh2

Kh1

Kh2

5 km


G & G issues

Low NG sand High NG sand

Lower GharifPrimary Target

Upper &Middle GharifSecondary Target

Faulting

Faulting across the field is seen to juxtapose the Primary Target Lower Gharif Reservoir against the Secondary Target Middle and Upper Gharif Sands which Do not appear to have as much lateral and vertical connectivity as observed in the Lower Gharif.

Were sand is present either side of the faults there is communication and fluid moves across faults

The vertical separation of faulted zones observed in wells is up to 20 m.

5 km


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000m

1:45000

Poor developed UGh & MGh withno lateral continuity

Moderate developed LGh with poor lateral continuity

Poor developed UGh & MGh withpoor lateral continuity

Very well developed LGh with Exceptional lateral continuity


Moderate developed LGh with reasonable lateral continuity


Moderate developed LGh with poor lateral continuity



Moderate developed UGh & MGh with poor lateral continuity

Well developed LGh with good lateral continuity

Well developed UGh & MGh with good lateral continuity


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000m

1:45000

AB North – Northern Flank Area• MGh and LGh-3 has limited to no pressure communication with AB North - Central Area

• LG-1 & 2 are not completed in the AB North Flank Area

• Well data shows that the LGh-1 is pressure depleted

Fault acting as baffle across MGh

Fault acting as potential baffle across LGh

AB North – Central Area• MGh – In communication with nearby wells and

AB North - Northern Flank Area; but no communication with AB North – Southern Flank

Area• LGh – LGh-1 is in limited communication with

nearby wells– LGh 2&3 are in communication with AB North Southern Flank Area– LGh 2&3 has limited communication with AB North – Northern Flank Area

AB North – Southern Flank Area• MGh - limited pressure communication with

AB North – Central Area• LGh - LGh-1 limited pressure

communication with AB North – Central Area• LGh – LGh 2&3 Well data shows pressure communication with AB North – Central Area

AB Central – Northern Flank Area• LGh – Wells are in communication in all LGh

sub-zones• LGh - LGh-2 is the main reservoir, then

LGh1

AB South – Western Flank Area• This area has no/very limited communication

with the rest of the South

Fault acting as baffle across LGh

Fault acting as baffle across MGh and LGh

AB Central– Eastern Flank Area• Has substandard reservoir properties• Acts as a barrier between northern and

southern areas in the Central Area

AB Central– Southern Flank Area• LGh-1 & 3 are more productive than the

LGH-2

AB South– Eastern Flank Area• Wells are in communication

• Some wells show waterf lood response• This area has lower pressure than South

Western area


AB Far South– Northern Flank Area• Higher pressure (+4000KPa) than and not in

communication with the AB Far South Southern Flank area

AB Far South– Southern Flank Area• Wells are in communication with each other,

but not in communication with the AB Far South Northern Flank area

North AB AreaWell developed UGh & MGh reservoir

Central AB AreaModerate developed UGh and MGh reservoirWell developed LGh reservoir

South AB AreaPoor developed UGh and MGh reservoir on flanksExcellent developed LGh reservoir in center

Far South AB AreaPoor UGh, MGh & LGh reservoirs

Facies and Pressure Trends


RFT Pressure vs. Time (at Datum)Combined Gharif Reservoirs prior to Injection

MDT Pressure Distribution of Gharif Reservoir

• The initial Reservoir Pressure Gharif 15450 kpa at datum -1240 m.• The current Gharif Reservoir pressure in the range 4000-12000 kpa.


UGh & MGh have better sand development than the LGh but lateral continuity between wells is evident in all three units.There is evidence of pressure communication in the MGh and LGh across the Northern Area

-1350

-144

0

-1320

-120

0

-13 8

0

0 250 500 750 1000 1250m

1:10000

HSGHU

HSGHM-2

HSGHL-3HSGHL-3

HSGHL-2

HSGHL-1

HSAKR

20.00 150.00GR 0.10 50.00LLD

0.10 50.00LLS 0.45 -0.15CNL1.95 2.95RHOB 0.3500 -0.3500POR_Cutoff

-1.0000 1.0000So_Cutof f

5000 20000RFT

Open

Open

Open

Open

Open

PERFS

HSGHL-3

ABJ-14H1 [MD]20.00 150.00GR 0.10 50.00LLD

0.10 50.00LLS 0.45 -0.15CNL1.95 2.95RHOB -1.0000 1.0000So_Cutof f

0.3500 -0.3500POR_Cutoff

5000 20000RF T

Open

Open

Open

Open

Open

Open

PERFS

H SGHL-3

ABJ-10H1 [MD]20.00 150.00GR 1.00 50.00LLD

0.45 -0.15CNL1.95 2.95RHOB -1.0000 1.0000So_Cutof f

0.3500 -0.3500POR_Cutoff

5000 20000RFT

Closed

Closed

Closed

Closed

Open

Open

Open

PERFS

HSGH L-3

ABJ-30H1 [MD]20.00 150.00GR 0.10 50.00LLD


0.3500 -0.3500POR_Cutoff

5000 20000RF T

Open

Open

Open

Open

Open

Open

Open

PERFS

HSGHL-3

ABJ-22H1 [MD]20.00 150.00GR 0.10 50.00LLD

0.10 50.00LLS 0.45 -0.15CNL1.95 2.95RHOB -1.0000 1.0000So_Cutoff

0.3000 -0.3000POR_Cutof f

5000 20000RFT

Open

Open

Open

PERFS

HSGHL-3

ABJ-40H3 [MD]20.00 150.00GR 0.10 50.00LLD


0.3000 -0.3000POR_Cutoff

5000 20000RFT

Open

Open

Open

Open

Open

PERFS

HSGHL-3

ABJ-44H2 [MD]

HSGHU

HSGHM-2

HSGHL-3HSGHL-3

HSGHL-2

HSGHL-1

HSAKR

Section flattened on Base Gharif

A B

AB Field Northern Area - GeologyA

B

UG

hLG

hM

Gh


-1350

-144

0

-1320

-120

0

-13 8

0

0 250 500 750 1000 1250m

1:10000

AB Field Northern Area - Structure

ABJ-14H1 ABJ-10H1 ABJ-30H1 ABJ-22H1

ABJ-40H3

ABJ-44H2

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800

-1450

-1400

-1350

-1300

-1250

-1200

-1450

-1400

-1350

-1300

-1250

-1200

Symbol legend

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:10000

A B

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800

-1450

-1400

-1350

-1300

-1250

-1200

-1450

-1400

-1350

-1300

-1250

-1200

Symbol legendHSGHUHSGHM-2

HSGHL-3HSGHL-2

HSGHL-1HSAKR

HSAK-1HSAK-5

HSAK-9ABJ-14H1

ABJ-10H1ABJ-30H1

ABJ-22H1ABJ-40H3

ABJ-44H2

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:10000

Faults and Folding has resulted in localised compartmentalisation of the Northern Area of the AB Field.There is evidence of pressure communication in the MGh and LGh across the Northern Area

A

B


AB Field Northern Area - Pressure

-1350

-1350

-1350

-135 0

-1350

-1350

-1350

-1350

-1350

-1380

-138

0

-1290

-1410

-1320

-132

0

-1260 -1290

-1260

-144

0

-1380

-1380

-138

0

-1380

-1410

-126

0

-1320

-1320

-1320

-1320

-132 0

-1290

-1290

-1290

-1290

-120

0

-1260

-1260

-1500

-1230

-123

0

-1440

-1380

-138

0

-13 80

-13 8

0

-1410

-141

0

-141

0

-1470

-1410

-1440

-1290

-1290

-1260

-1320

-1320

-1410

-1440

0 250 500 750 1000 1250m

1:15000

AB North – Northern Flank Area• MGh and LGh-3 has limited to no pressure

communication with AB North - Central Area• LG-1 & 2 are not completed in the AB North Flank

Area• Well data shows that the LGh-1 is pressure depleted

AB North – Central Area• MGh – In communication with nearby wells

and AB North - Northern Flank Area; but no communication with AB North – Southern

Flank Area• LGh – LGh-1 is in limited communication with

nearby wells– LGh 2&3 are in communication with AB

North Southern Flank Area– LGh 2&3 has limited communication with

AB North – Northern Flank Area

AB North – Southern Flank Area• MGh - limited pressure communication

with AB North – Central Area• LGh - LGh-1 limited pressure communication with AB North – Central

Area• LGh – LGh 2&3 Well data shows pressure

communication with AB North – Central Area

Fault acting as baffle across MGh

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Aug-87 May-90 Jan-93 Oct-95 Jul-98 Apr-01 Jan-04 Oct-06 Jul-09

Pre

ssur

e, k

Pa

TIME

AB - North Area Sub Zone Lower GH

Initial Reservoir Pressure @ -1240 TVD ss =~16000 kPa

Initial Reservoir Pressure

Oil Production Waterflood

Response

Fault acting as potential baffle across LGh


LG3

LG2

LG1

LG3

LG2

LG1

AB-NA WF Pattern Northern Flank

AB-NB WF Pattern North Area West Flank

AB-NC WF Pattern North Central Area

AB-ND WF Pattern North Area East Flank

GH Prod 11WI 5WSW 2CIW 2AK 1

GH-UGH-U

GH-MGH-M

AB-NE WF Pattern North Area Southern Flank

AB Field Northern Area - Wells

A

BC D

E


AB North Area has 5 injectors:• Main focus has been to increase reservoir pressure

and increase the net voidage in this area of the field• General observation:• Very limited injectivity into LG-1 in AB North Area:

only 2 out of five injectors (C & D)• Structure and Facies are seen to play a major role

in subsurface flow in AB North• LGh is not as well developed compared to UGh &

MGh in AB North Area• Local faults are seen to inhibit subsurface flow in

specific zones• AB-NA WI is seen to support offset wells to the

West & South in the MGh and LGh• AB-NB WI is seen to support in the LGh only

due to poor connectivity in the shallower zones• AB-NC WI is seen to support all offset wells in

the UGh & MGh• AB-ND WI is supporting wells to the south-west

and north-east – possible fault interference• AB-NE WI supports wells to the north in the

MGh.

AB North Area – Pattern Summary

A

BC D

E


0.

5.

10.

15.

20.

25.

30.

1

10

100

1000Au

g-87

Aug-

88

Aug-

89

Aug-

90

Aug-

91

Aug-

92

Aug-

93

Aug-

94

Aug-

95

Aug-

96

Aug-

97

Aug-

98

Aug-

99

Aug-

00

Aug-

01

Aug-

02

Aug-

03

Aug-

04

Aug-

05

Aug-

06

Aug-

07

Aug-

08

Aug-

09

Aug-

10

Oil

Wel

l Cou

nt

Oil

Rat

e m

3/d

Date

North Area Production Performance

OilCD

North Depl

AB Field Production History – Northern Area

Start of AB North Area Waterflood

Aug 1998

High

Low

Oil Gain


AB Southern Area – Geology

PTKFCPTKFL

HSGHU

HSGHM-2

HSGHL-3HSGHL-3

HSGHL-2

HSGHL-1

HSAKR

-14.01 375.82GR

-14.01 375.82ECGR 0.10 50.00RES_DEP0.10 50.00RES_MED

-0.02 0.88NPHI1.95 2.95RHOB -1.0000 1.0000SHNET

0.3000 -0.3000PORNET

5000 20000RFT

HSGHL-3

ABJ-75H1 [MD]20.00 150.00GR

0.10 50.00RES_DEP0.10 50.00RES_MED 1.95 2.95RHOB -1.0000 1.0000SHNET

0.3000 -0.3000PORNET

5000 20000RFT

HSGHL-3

ABJ-45H2 [MD]20.00 150.00GR 2.00 50.00RES_M ED

2.00 50.00RES_DEP0.45 -0.15CNL1.95 2.95RHOB

-1.0000 1.0000SHNET

0.3000 -0.3000PORNET5000 20000RFT

HSGHL-3

ABJ-59H1 [MD]20.00 150.00GR 0.10 50.00LLD

0.10 50.00LLS 0.45 -0.15CNL1.95 2.95RHOB -1.0000 1.0000SHN ET

0.5000 -0.5000P ORNE T

5000 20000RFT

Closed

Closed

Closed

Closed

Closed

Closed

PERFS

HSGHL-3

ABJ-2H1 [MD]7.97 195.71GR7.97 195.71ECGR

0.10 50.00RES_DEP-0.05 0.71NPHI1.95 2.95RHOB -1.0000 1.0000SHNET

0.3000 -0.3000PORNET

HSGHL-3

ABJ-71H1 [MD]10.39 226.32GR

10.39 226.32ECGR 0.10 50.00RES_DEP

0.10 50.00RES_MED 1.95 2.95RHOB -1.0000 1.0000SHNET

0.3000 -0.3000PORNET

5000 20000RFT

HSGHL- 3

ABJ-50H1 [MD]20.00 150.00GR 0.10 50.00LLD

0.10 50.00LLS 0.45 -0.15CNL1.95 2.95RHOB -1.0000 1.0000So_Cutoff

0.3500 -0.3500POR_Cutoff

5000 20000RFT

Open

Open

Open

Open

Open

PERFS

HSGHL-3

ABJ-23H1 [MD]

HSGHU

HSGHM-2

HSGHL-3HSGHL-3

HSGHL-2

HSGHL-1

HSAKR

-135

0

-1350

-135 0

-135 0

-1 35 0

-1350

-1350

-1350

-1350

-1380

-138

0

-129 0

-1410

-1320

-132

0

-1260 -1290

-1260

-14 4

0

-1380

-1380

-138

0

-1380

-1410

-126

0

-1320

-1320

-1320

-1320

-1320

-1290

-1290

-1290

-1290

-120

0

-1260

-1260

-1500

-1230

-123

0

-1440

-1380

-138

0

-138 0

-138

0

-1410

-14 1

0

-141

0

-1470

-1410

-1440

-1290

-1290

-1260

-1320

-1320

-1410

-1440

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500m

1:15000

The LGh has excellent sand development to the across the whole Southern AB Area – specifically in the east.There is evidence of pressure communication in the LGh across the Southern Area

X Y

X Y

UG

hLG

h


AB Southern Area – StructureX Y

ABJ-75H1 ABJ-42H2 ABJ-50H1 ABJ-23H1

400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200

400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200Distance, [m]

-1800-1600

-1400-1200

-1000

-180

0-1

600

-140

0-1

200

-100

0

Z, [m]

400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200

400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200Distance, [m]

-1800-1600

-1400-1200

-1000

-180

0-1

600

-140

0-1

200

-100

0

Z, [m]

400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200

400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200-1900

-1800

-1700

-1600

-1500

-1400

-1300

-1200

-1100

-1000

-1900

-1800

-1700

-1600

-1500

-1400

-1300

-1200

-1100

-1000

MCAKhuffPTKFRPTKFCPTKFLGharifHSGHUHSGHM-2HSGHL-3HSGHL-2HSGHL-1Al KhlataHSAKRHSAK-1HSAK-5HSAK-9

Zones

0 250 500 750 1000 1250m

1:14000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000m

1:45000

X Y


AB South Area – Pattern Performance

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Jan-04 May-05 Oct-06 Feb-08 Jul-09 Nov-10 Apr-12

Pre

ssur

e,kP

a

Time

AB Field - Southern Area RFT Pressure vs. Time

Lower Gharif Zone

Easten flank AB South Area Press @ -1240 TVD ss =14500 kPa

2011 new wellsWestern side wells

Eastern side wells

Initial Reservoir Pressure @ -1240m TVD ss =~16000 kPa

West side of South Area Press @ -1240 TVD ss =8500-9000 kPa

East side of South Area Press@ -1240 TVD ss =7500 kPa (4000 with no INJ)

2010 new wells

-135

0

-1350

-1350

-13 50

-1350

-1350

-1350

-1350

-135

0

-1380

-138

0

-1290

-1410

-1320

-132

0

-1260 -1290

-1260

-144

0

-1380

-1380

-138

0

-1380

-1410

-126

0

-1320

-1320

-1320

-1320

-13 20

-1290

-1290

-1290

-1290

-120

0

-1260

-1260

-1500

-1230

-123

0

-1440

-1380

-138

0

-13 80

-13 8

0

-1410

-141

0

-141

0

-1470

-1410

-1440

-1290

-1290

-1260

-1320

-1320

-1410

-1440

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500m

1:15000

AB Central– Southern Flank Area• LGh-1 & 3 are more productive than the

LGH-2

AB South– Eastern Flank Area• Wells are in communication

• Some wells show waterflood response • This area has lower pressure than South

Western area

Fault acting as baffle across MGh and LGh


AB South – Western Flank Area• This area has no/very limited

communication with the rest of the South


AB Southern Area Wells

Three AB SA WF PatternsAB-SA WF Pattern in the South East CentralAB-SB WF Pattern in the Southern South FlankAB-SC WF Pattern in the South West Central

GH Prod 11WI 4CIW 2AK/MZ 2

LG3

LG2

LG1

LG3

LG2

LG1

N

42

B

AC


AB Southern Area Pattern Performance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1.00

10.00

100.00

1000.00

Jan-08 May-08 Sep-08 Jan-09 May-09 Sep-09 Jan-10 May-10 Sep-10 Jan-11 May-11 Sep-11

Wat

er cu

t %

Oil/

Liqu

id ra

te m

3/d

South Area Production Performance

OilCD

LiquidCD

oil depletion

WaterCut

AB-SB WF

AB-SA-WF

AB-SC-WF6 OP wells

High

Low

Oil gain in South AB Field


AB South Area Pattern Summary: Three WI currently impacting flow in the AB

South area.

Well data show that 3 wells have

responded to WF out of 9 producers

currently producing from GH.

Well data show that the East of the AB

South area is responding better to the

West – better rock quality to the East A Tracer Injection in AB-A & AB-C has been

recommended to identify pattern

connectivity, flow path, confirm WF response

An additional 3 -4 new wells locations have

been recommended of which two have been

drilled

AB South Area – Pattern Summary

N

42

B

AC


AB Field Production History - Southern Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1

10

100

1000

Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11

BS&

W, %

Rat

e (m

3/d)

Date

AB - GH South Production History

Start WI OilCD LiquidCD OilWellcount WaterCut

AB -SB

AB-SA

AB-SC

High

Low


• The Gharif reservoir in each accumulation within the AB Field responds to Water injection in a unique way due to a combination of Facies variations and Structural controls.

• Vigilant monitoring of production and pressure data has allowed an improved understanding of to subsurface fluid dynamics to be modeled

• Facies Controls on WF include reservoir quality, connectivity and lateral continuity across the field

• Structural Control on WF include compartmentalization due to minor salt related faulting and folding.

• The resultant pressure distribution illustrates both production and injection history within the target reservoir and illustrates the location of superior connected pay within the field

• The results of this work has allowed for improved production forecasts to be made as well as allowed for a more simplified strategic well placement decision making process

Conclusions


The Authors wish to Thank

Field Team members MOG

&PDO

Acknowledgements

ab geos 2012_rs final

Documents