SPE 57289

Handil Field: Three Years of Lean Gas Injection Into Waterflooded Reservoirs
Sugianto Gunawan, Total Indonsie; Didier Cai, SPE, Total Indonsie

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery
Conference to be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2526 October 1999.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The giant Handil field comprises of more than 500
hydrocarbon accumulations, in structurally stacked and
compartmentalized fluvio-deltaic sands.
Most of the accumulations consist of a large column of
saturated oil underlying a gas-cap, trapped in reservoirs with
good rock properties, and have been produced by water
injection or strong natural water drive.
In 1995 five reservoirs, representing nearly 1/5 of the fields
total OOIP and which had reached their final stage of
waterflood development 58% of the total oil in place had
already been produced were submitted to a further
development with lean gas injection to increase the ultimate
oil recovery.
To date, after 3 years of gas injection, the recovery factor for
these 5 reservoirs has increased by 1.2% of the oil initially in
place and the project is considered both a technical and an
economical success.
The predominant drive mechanism with lean gas injection
have been confirmed by field data. The previous decline of oil
productionhas been stopped and the oil rate is now stabilizing.
The main monitoring challenge has been the control of gas
cycling for most of the producers, particularly during periods
of higher injection rates to compensate low injection periods
imposed by gas availability.
The very close monitoring of the wells and reservoirs
performance, the numerical simulation and material balance
studies, have helped to better understand the mechanisms
involved and have to led a revised and more efficient policy to
maximize oil production.
The experience gained and the analysis of this 3-year old
project gives the confidence to pursue the extension of the lean
gas injection development to others reservoirs of Handil field.

Introduction
Handil is a giant oil field located in the Mahakam Delta of the
island of Borneo, Indonesia (Fig. 1)
The structure of the field is a simple anticline, 4 km long
and 3 km wide, with a main east-west fault dividing a North
and a South areas (Fig. 2).
The geology is complex, the field comprises more than 500
hydrocarbon accumulations, stacked between 300 m to 4000 m
subsea, trapped in channel-sand and sand-bar reservoirs
deposited in a fluvio-deltaic environment of Miocene age (Fig.
2).
Vertically, the field has been sub-divided in a Shallow
Zone, grouping the accumulations from 300 to 1500 mSS. A
main Zone between 1500 and 3000 mSS. And a Deep Zone
with the accumulations below 3000 mSS. Around 300 oil
accumulations are found in the shallow and Main Zones, while
the 200 gas accumulations lie mostly in the Deep Zone.
The reservoirs are of excellent characteristics, with
permeabilities ranging from 10 to 2000 mD, porosities in the
vicinities of 25% and the connate water saturations around
22%. Within a given reservoir, the vertical permeability is of
the same order as the horizontal permeability.
Most of the oil accumulations consist of a large column
typically well in excess of 100 metre of saturated oil
underlying a gas-cap, the relative size of which is very
variable. The structural dip ranges from 5o to 12o , down to the
aquifers generally connected in the western and eastern
sectors. The aquifers are generally very strong in the Shallow
Zone, and rather weak in the Main and Deep Zones.
The initial pressure regime is hydrostatic, while the
temperature gradient is 0.03 oC/metre. The oil density varies
between 31o and 34o API from the Shallow to the main Zone.
Oil formation volume factor is 1.1 to 1.4 v/v, dissolved gas to
oil ratio is 50 to 100 v/v, oil viscosity 0.6 to 1.0 cp, and the gas
formation volume factor range from 5.E-3 to 10.E-3 v res/v
surface.
Production history
Oil production started in 1975 under natural depletion drive.
Shortly after the accumulations of the main Zone, which
benefited of a weak aquifer at best, were submitted to a
development by peripheric water injection.
Water injection has eventually become the depletion drive
mechanism for the equivalent of 65% of the fields OOIP.

SUGIANTO GUNAWAN; DIDIER CAI

Field production peaked at 180,000 bopd in 1982 out of which

128,000 bopd were being produced thanks to water injection
(Fig. 3).

The combination of favourable reservoir and fluid

properties, and of intensive reservoir studies and monitoring,
have made the waterflood development very successful.
Handil has now become a very mature field with more than
330 wells drilled resulting in a well spacing of 300 metres.
Most of the wells have dual string completions with up to 5
packers.
At the end of 1995, five reservoirs of the Main Zone,
representing about 20% of the fields total OOIP and which
had reached the end of their development by waterflood with
an average oil recovery factor of 58%, were submitted to
further development by crestal injection of lean hydrocarbon
gas.
Gas injection studies
Extensive studies had been carried out as soon as the early
1980s to evaluate Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
developments of the Handil field. The economically most
attractive option was found to be the re-injection of the
associated gas.
Injection of a lean hydrocarbon gas into a light oil is
essentially an immiscible displacement process. It relies on the
gravity drainage of the oil which, in this particular case, had
already undergone a waterflood process. Additional recovery
would come from the production of the mobile oil previously
by-passed by the injected water and, for the larger part, from
the re-mobilisation of capillary trapped oil. It has been
demonstrated that, given enough time, the residual oil
saturation left in waterflooded area can be decreased by
further displacement with immiscible gas to extremely low
values. However the process has generally to be stopped
earlier to remain economical.
The injection of lean hydrocarbon gas into a waterflooded,
light oil reservoir, was then, and remains to date, a new
development process, which had never been tested in southEast Asia. The mechanisms and their quantifications have
been extensively studied in the TOTALFINA group before the
large scale implementation of the handil field project, refs.1
The series of studies were conducted simultaneously as
follows.
1. Identification of the best candidate reservoirs for lean gas
injection, selection of a typical reservoir for further study
of the fundamental mechanisms.
2. Laboratory experiments with actual Handil rock and
reservoir fluid samples to evaluate the efficiency of the
process at the microscopic scale, and to provide data for
the numerical simulations.
The key experiment consisted in the displacement of a
2.60 metre long core. The core, placed in a vertical
position, was injected with formation water from the
bottom during 2 days then with gas from its top for up to
170 days. The operating pressure and temperature were
185 bar and 93 oC. The results showed that the residual oil
saturation after waterflood, about 27 % in the experiment,

3.

4.

SPE 57289

was decreased by gas displacement to values as low as

3% at the top of the core, thus confirming the efficiency
of gravity drainage.
The 2D (cross section) and 3D (full field) numerical
simulations were performed based on the laboratory
results.
2D simulation to determain the main sensitivities and
the optimum range of injection and production
parameters.
3D simulation to establish the ratios of injection rate
(5.5% of the hydrocarbon pore volume per year), oil
production rate (0.75% of OOIP per year), the tertiary
oil recovery (7.4% of OOIP over 20 years) and the
production philosophy.
Candidate reservoirs for implementation of the gas
injection project were chosen, according to the results of
the numerical simulations and to the volumes of gas
available for injection, the main criteria being:
Individual OOIP larger than 6 MMstbo
Initial oil column larger than 70 metre
.Average permeability better than 100 mD
Clearly understood production history during
previous secondary waterflood development.

Initial project
Five reservoirs of the Handil field, representing a combined
303 Mmstbo, were selected for the initial phase of the project.
These reservoirs have porosity between 17 % to 25 %, connate
water saturation from 15 to 19 %, permeabilities between 100
md to 2000 md, and initial oil columns from 120 m to 185 m.
(Tab. 1)

The high recovery factor after water injection, 58% on

average, indicated an excellent sweep efficiency considering
that the residual oil saturation after waterflooding is estimated
at 28% from core displacements and reliable field correlations.
Production data at the end of the waterflood, and open
hole log data from the gas injection wells, which were drilled
specifically and just before the start of the gas injection,
indicated that the peripheric water injection had flooded the
reservoirs up to the level of their initial gas oil contact, leaving
nearly only capillary trapped oil behind (Fig. 10). The two-gas
injection wells called for by the new development have been
drilled at the crest of the reservoirs and completed with two
strings and three packers. Three of the reservoirs have a
dedicated injection string, while the other two are injected in
commingle with a downhole choke to control the injection
split.
Thanks to the small spacing, the existing wells have been
grouped in concentric rows of producers. The first row is the
structurally highest, and the closest to the injection wells, the
second row is deeper on the structure, than comes the third
row, etc. (Fig. 4 and 5)
The first row is located some 15 to 20 metre below the
depth of the initial gas oil contact, and comprises of about 40
wells for the group of the 5 reservoirs. A systematic
optimization of the perforations was recommended by the

SPE 57289

HANDIL FIELD: THREE YEARS OF LEAN GAS INJECTION INTO WATERFLOODED RESERVOIRS

numerical simulation studies, to open or leave open only the

bottom 1/3 of the reservoir interval in each producer. This
called for 21 immediate jobs of cementation/re-perforation for
the wells of the first row with further jobs to come later for the
wells of the following rows.
The gas injection taken from the fields gas export line, is
injected at 180 bars at the well heads by a 4.5 MW electrical
driven compressor. The gas injection was started in November
1995.
Additional oil evaluation and base line
To evaluate the efficiency and the gain from the gas
injection process, it was determined what the production
performance would have been if the water injection continued.
This hypothetical performance is referred to as the baseline:
it has been the reference to calculate the additional oil, or socalled EOR oil gained from the injection of the gas into
reservoirs in tertiary conditions.
The baseline was established for each of the 5 reservoirs
from decline curves analysis techniques, since there was a
long history under water injection. Some reservoir simulations
were also run, that confirmed the validity of the baselines.
Initial monitoring policy
The monitoring policy was initially established from the
sensitivity runs on the 3D reservoir simulations.
Water injection was stopped and the gas injection started at an
initial rate of 55 MMscfd for the 5 reservoirs- revised to 67
MMscfd shortly after start-up, as the best balance between
speedier recovery and stability of the gas front.
Production was simultaneously started from the wells of the
first concentric row.
The reservoir fluid offtake would be equivalent to the
reservoir gas injection rate, in order to maintain the reservoir
pressure, and to displace the gas/liquid interface downwards.
Producers were to be shut-in if their gas-oil ratio (GOR)
exceeded 2000 v/v, but had no constraint on water cut. Indeed,
producing water only from a well could be required to respect
the pattern of concentric rows and keep a stable gas front.
At gas breakthrough or if the GOR could not be
maintained below its limit, the producers of the first row
would be shut in and the production switched to the wells of
the second row, further down dip. With time the production
would thus gradually switch from one row to the next and
progress down the structure, to eventually reach the deepest
wells and the end of the process.
To take advantage of the gravity drainage, still taking place
behind the gas front, as demonstrated in laboratory
experiments, and to produce the re-mobilised oil, updip
producers shut in because of excessive GOR would regularly
be re-opened. Tentatively every 6 months, this well production
policy had been shown in numerical simulations to be an
essential feature of the depletion drive process, yielding a
significant share of the production.

Production performance under gas injection

During the 5 month following the started up, the oil
production continued to decline along its previous trend under
water injection (Fig. 6) down from 3000 to 2500 bopd. This
period saw the change of the production wells pattern, from
the water injection phase to the new gas injection phase:
several updip wells were closed, the wells of the first
concentric row were opened, most of the jobs for optimization
of the perforations took place during that period. The
immediate result was a temporary decline of potential and
increase of water cut, as the production was then coming from
perforations more downdip than at the end of the waterflood.
At the end of this first 5-month period, the production level
increased to 3700 bopd, thanks to a better performance of the
wells in the first row. That improved performance has been
explained by the arrival, as expected, of an oil-bank pushed by
the gas front. Nearly simultaneously gas breakthrough
occurred in the most wells of the first row. A positive side
effect was that, the lighter fluid column in the production
strings increased the deliverability of the producers and
eliminated the need for artificial lifting. However some
producers had already to be shut in because of excessive GOR.
After 2.5 years of gas injection, most of the first row
producers had been shut in and the bulk of the production was
ensured by the second row and some third row wells.
The wells shut in, because their GOR exceeded the limit,
have regularly been re-opened, as dictated by the production
philosophy. Several have exhibited on this occasion a lower
water-cut and an improved oil rate 15 to 30 months after their
first sharp increase in GOR. This better performance lasts
from a few weeks to up to 3 months, depending on the well,
before the oil production is again killed by the increasing
GOR. However the resulting oil gain can compensate the oil
lost during the shut in period (Fig. 7). At the end of the third
year under gas injection, there were 10 wells that had clearly
improved their performance in such a way, the higher oil rate
resulting from a decreased water cut.
Despite irregular gas injection periods (Fig. 8) and lower
cumulative injection as compared to initial plans linked only
to gas availability the decline of the production from the 5reservoirs has been stopped and the oil rate has now stabilized
at around 3000 bopd. The cumulative production during the
period has reached 3.6 Mmstbo, for an increase of the
recovery factor of 1.2% OOIP. This is nearly twice what
would have been achieved with water injection, as the
comparison with the baseline gives an additional oil, i.e EOR
oil gain, of 1.6 MMstbo
Gas injection and cycling
The average of the gas injection rate during the 3 years has
remained below its target because of the higher priority given
at times to gas export: 55 MMscfd has been realized versus 67
MMscfd recommended.
The cumulative gas injection has reached 63 BCF, while
the cumulative production of gas has been 34 BCF, yielding a
net injected volume of 29 BCF stored in the reservoirs.

SUGIANTO GUNAWAN; DIDIER CAI

The average cycling of the injected gas has thus slightly

exceeded 50%, while the recommended target had been set to
40% (Fig. 9)
During the periods of low injection several good but high
GOR producers were kept flowing to maintain the oil
production, which translated into temporary high ratios for gas
cycling. In addition the periods of high level injection, run
deliberately to compensate for the low gas injection periods,
have induced sharp increases of GOR on oil producers without
much benefit on the oil rate.
The sensitivity of the global performance to reservoir
heterogeneities, to aquifer strength, and the necessity to
maintain the cycling of the gas below or close to the
recommended level have been the main difficulties met, when
trying to create a better areal and vertical sweep efficiency.
Therefore the main challenge in the current gas injection
project has been to optimize the net gas injection, to perform a
piston-like displacement with gas fingering as limited as
possible, in order to achieve a controlled expansion of the free
gas zone in the reservoirs, eventually down to the depth of the
initial water-oil contact.
Adapting the monitoring policy
In July 1998 revised monitoring guidelines were introduced,
which aimed at stopping the series of high levels of injection
rate (above recommended average rate) after low gas injection
periods. It was instead recommended to shut in some of the
higher water cut producers and balance the reservoir offtake,
rather than to keep the production level as high as possible and
see the reservoir pressure decrease, which previously
necessitated to follow by high injection periods in a partly
failed attempt to catch up on reservoir fluids offtake/intake
balance.
This amended policy was part of a general effort for
optimizing volumetric sweep efficiency and favouring piston
like displacements.
The other main revision was to set the maximum gas
cycling level of 40% for each reservoir, rather than limiting
production GOR to 2000 v/v on a well basis as previously in
recognition that the higher GOR wells were also the best oil
producers.
Out of the 21 jobs planned to get systematical optimization
of the perforation interval, only 14 jobs had been realized, here
also because of higher priorities assigned to the operational
work-units. Based on the performance of the wells with
optimised perforations, the policy of systematic optimization
has been softened. Five of the remaining jobs for the first row
wells have been cancelled as technically too challenging for an
economical return. While the jobs for the second and other
row wells will be carried out on a case by case basis, with a
programme limited to re-perforations without any
cementation.
The new monitoring guidelines have been based on the
conclusions from the very close well and reservoir monitoring
carried out during the first 2 years, further supported by
material balance studies and a new full-field simulation of one

SPE 57289

reservoir. The new simulation entailed a revised geological

description, a history matching of more than 20 years of
production under water injection, which took into account the
reservoir fluid saturation status as logged in the gas injection
wells at the end of the water injection period, and the history
matching of one year under gas injection.
Reservoirs behavior
After 3 years of gas-injection, the gas cap has globally
expanded between 35 and 75 metre below the initial gas oil
contact (Fig. 11).
Around 25 strings in the first row got gas breakthrough
within 5 to 10 months of injection. 10 strings have clearly
exhibited the benefit linked to the gravity drainage of the oil in
the gas-invaded zone. Their respective oil rates have increased
consecutively to a decrease of their water cut, which indicates
a re-mobilisation of the oil and the formation of a small bank
around the wells. Their GOR have remained high throughout.
Several production strings have shown a marked decrease
of their GOR when the gas injection stopped for a long period.
This demonstrates that the reservoirs have to some extent been
subject to gas fingering. This has been confirmed by material
balance calculations (Havlena & Odeh plot types) and the
comparison of the region theoretically invaded by the gas with
the well GORs data. The conclusions are that some reservoirs
have experienced a piston-like displacement, while one has
been subject to the fingering of gas front, and one may not
have received all the gas that is assumed injected.
The benefit of the drainage of the oil in the gas-invaded
zone has been more evident in the reservoirs, which have the
deeper and wider gas-cap expansion. This confirms that the
control of the areal and vertical sweep by a stable gas front is
the key to the success of the project.
The reservoir pressures, at bubble point at virgin
conditions, 2800 psia to 3200 psia, were depleted by around
1000 psi at the start of the gas injection project as a result of
the production history of natural depletion followed by water
injection. As explained above, irregular levels of injection and
gas cycling prevented from strictly meeting the initial
objective of pressure maintenance at this level. Reservoir
pressures have declined by another 300 psi since the start of
the gas injection, mostly during the second year of injection.
The new monitoring policy has since succeeded in stopping
the pressure depletion which, within this limited amount, is
not considered to have been detrimental to the reservoirs
performance.
The material balance studies already mentioned have
quantified the strength of the aquifer influx, the extent of the
gas fingering, and pointed to probable misallocations of the
injected gas volumes. They have allowed to understand the
drive mechanism as taking place in each of the 5 reservoirs, by
comparison with the more generic studies run on the
numerical models set up before the beginning of the project.

SPE 57289

HANDIL FIELD: THREE YEARS OF LEAN GAS INJECTION INTO WATERFLOODED RESERVOIRS

Project economics
Investment costs were limited to 18 M$ for the compressor
and its utilities and 5 M$ for the newly drilled gas injector
wells, the project will have no problem in yielding a
competitive rate of return.
With 1.6 Mmstbo of additional oil produced during the
first 3 years, the gas injection project has already yielded some
24 M$ (assuming 15 $/bbl).
The injected gas is considered free as it will all be reproduced during a 2 to 3 year blow-down period at the end of
the project. It is only stored while the gas sales are met by
other sources of gas.
There is however a cost linked to the accelerated
development drilling of nearby gas fields. This acceleration is
required to ensure the necessary production potential, since the
injection of the gas into the oil reservoirs mobilizes 67
MMscfd on average of the available total capacity. This cost
has been estimated at 5 M$ over the life of the project.
Project extension
At the feasibility stage of the project up to 30 reservoirs had
been identified as possible candidates for the gas injection.
The initial project was limited to the 5 most promising, mostly
for reasons related to the availability of the injection gas.
In light of the results obtained so far and of the improved
understanding and know-how gained during the first three
years, it has been decided to extent the current project to a
second phase. Taking advantage of the installed injection
capacity of 90 MMscfd and with now less constraints on gas
availability, 6 more reservoirs will be involved that represent a
combined 167 Mmstbo of OOIP. The extension phase calls
only for the drilling of a new gas well and some flow-line
work for injection of about 22 MMscfd in the 6 reservoirs.
This means that eventually 470 Mmstbo of the Handil field
OOIP, previously produced by water injection, will be
submitted to an innovative EOR development that has now
successfully proven its potential at the field scale.
Conclusion
Crestal injection of lean hydrocarbon gas into waterflooded,
light oil, reservoirs is a new EOR technique in the Asia-Pacific
region.
The first three years of its application on the Handil field
have proven that it can yield additional reserves from
reservoirs otherwise at near abandon, and in economical
conditions.
The response to the mechanisms described by the
fundamental studies carried out before start-up have been
confirmed and observed on the field.
The merits of the production philosophy derived from
numerical simulations have essentially bee confirmed, while
some amendments have been made to take into account the
specificities of the reservoirs involved and the constraints born
from the operational environment, in particular the irregular
availability of the injection gas.

The project has been identified as both a technical and an

economical success, which leads to a second phase that will
involve another 6 reservoirs in addition to the first 5. In year
2000, the project will thus entail to inject 90 Mmscfd into 11
reservoirs representing 470 Mmstbo OOIP. Another 15
production years will follow that will bring some 30 Mmstbo
of EOR oil from reservoirs otherwise at abandonment
conditions.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank TOTAL INDONSIE,
TOTALFINA, and PERTAMINA BPPKA for permission to
present this paper.
References
1. K. Madaoui, S. Sakthikumar, B. Thiebot, L. Bouvier:
Experimental and numerical investigation into the feasibility
of gas injection in waterflooded reservoirs 21st Annual
convention-Indonesian Petroleum Association -Jakarta-Oct.92

Res.

OOIP

A
B
C
D
E

MMbbls
24.6
110.9
36.8
29.2
101.6

TOTAL

303.0

Por.
%
22
22
25
22
22

Sw
%
19
20
15
17
15

initial oil Gas cap OWC GOC water rise RF @

res.
thickness
column
end
of
WI
(m)
(m)
BCF
mss mss
mss
120
0.9 1956 1836
1840
57%
15
172
25.8 2080 1908
1877
48%
25
185
18.1 2160 1976
1975
57%
15
155
27.6 2139 1984
2000
80%
25
162
0.0 2228 2067
2070
62%
25
72.4

Table 1 : Reservoir status at lean gas injection started up

no.

Well Nam e

1
HJ424 SS
2 HSA222 SS
3
HD414 LS
4
H316 SS
5
HF530 LS
6
HJ520 SS
7
HS323 LS
8
HA327 LS
9
HS323 SS
10 HSA431 LS
Total

Reservoir

A
B
B
B
A
B
C
D
A
C

Duration, from

Duration, from

gas injection

gas breakthrough

start-up to gas

to oil rate

breakthrough,

increased,

month

15
12
5
5
6
19
10
21
13
8

Production Test Data

Before

After

Oil Gain

month

bopd

bopd

bopd

23
26
28
33
31
17
28
14
22
28

44
83
4
109
57
178
59
0
72
92

214
562
712
366
168
311
240
148
227
133

170
479
708
257
111
133
181
148
155
41

698

3081

2383

Table 2 : Selection of wells which have clearly produced gravity drained

oil after 3 years of crestal gas injection.

figure 1 : Location map and Isobath map of the field

HANDIL FIELD
SSW - NNE STRUCTURAL CROSS SECTION

500

1000

1500

2000

2. WATER

2500

3000

3500

GAS

250 m

OIL
500 m

WATER

figure 2 : Structural cross setion of the field

1400
1200

Water injection start up

1000

Qo total field
150

GOR

800

BSW

100

Qo from reservoir
developed by water
injection

50

600
400
200

figure 3 : Field production history

98
99

96
97

94
95

92
93

90
91

87
88
89

85
86

83
84

81
82

79
80

0
77
78

GOR (v/v)

200

75
76

Qo (Mbopd) & BSW (%)

250

HANDIL EOR PROJECT

figure 4 : Isobath map of the reservoirs under lean gas injection

HANDIL EOR PROJECT

figure 5 : Vertical cross section of the reservoirs under lean gas injection

Production of reservoirs under gas injection : comparison of water injection

and gas injection drives - history, base line, actual
7000

Under water injection

5000

Under gas injection

4000
3000
2000
1000

Date
actual

base line

figure 6 : 5 reservoirs production performance under lean gas injection

9811

9809

9807

9805

9803

9801

9711

9709

9707

9705

9703

9701

9611

9609

9607

9605

9603

9601

9511

9509

9507

9505

9503

9501

9411

9409

9407

9405

9403

0
9401

Daily oil rate, bopd

6000

Oil rate, bopd

GOR, v/v

Date

BSW, %

figure 7 : One well example of oil gain by gravity drainage mechanism

Nov-98

Oct-98

Sep-98

Aug-98

Jul-98

Jun-98

May-98

Apr-98

Mar-98

Jan-98
Feb-98

Dec-97

Nov-97

Oct-97

Sep-97

Aug-97

Jun-97
Jul-97

May-97

Apr-97

Feb-97
Mar-97

Jan-97

Dec-96

100

Nov-96

100

800
95

700
90

600
85

500
80

400
75

300
70

65

60

0
55

BSW (%)

900

ingtion
perfora
Lower

200

Sep-96
Oct-96

Aug-96

Jul-96

Jun-96

May-96

Apr-96

Feb-96
Mar-96

Jan-96

Nov-95
Dec-95

Oct-95

Sep-95

Qo (bopd) ; GOR (x10 v/v)

Production history
well : HD414 LS
reservoir B

Date

figure 8 : Gas injection rate history

Nov-98

Sep-98

Jul-98

May-98

Mar-98

Jan-98

Nov-97

Sep-97

Jul-97

May-97

Mar-97

Jan-97

Nov-96

Sep-96

Jul-96

May-96

Mar-96

Jan-96

Nov-95

Gas injection rate (Mmscfd)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Reservoir under gas injection :

cycling of injected gas, monthly and cumulative
1.8

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

Date
monthly cycling

cumulative cycling

figure 9 : 5 reservoirs gas cycling percentage in monthly basis

and in cumulative basis

9812

9811

9810

9809

9808

9807

9806

9805

9804

9803

9802

9801

9712

9711

9710

9709

9708

9707

9706

9705

9704

9703

9702

9701

9612

9611

9610

9609

9608

9607

9606

9605

9604

9603

9602

9601

9512

0
9511

Ratio (Qgas
produced/Qgasinjected)

1.6

EOR RESERVOIR B
status before gas injection started up
Isopach map
with 5 m interval
0
10

Ini
tia
lO
W
C

10
5
5

15
0

10

C
O
lG
a
iti
In

HSA326 GI

Gas zone

Water flooded zone

0
0

figure 10 : Gas zone status at end of water injection period

EOR RESERVOIR B
status after 3 years of gas injection
Isopach map
with 5 m interval
0
10

Ini
tia
lO
W
C

10
5
5

15
0

10

C
O
lG
a
iti
In

HSA326 GI

Gas zone

Water flooded zone

0
0

figure 11 : Gas cap expansion status after 3 years of gas injection