SPE 136996

Optimization of Waterflooding Using Smart Well Technology

Oluwafisayo Meshioye, Laser Engineering & Resources Consultants Ltd.; Eric Mackay, Heriot Watt University;
E. Ekeoma, Laser Engineering & Resources Consultants Ltd.; and Martinez Chukuwezi, Repsol, Algeria

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 34 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 This Technology is highly recommended for Niger

The incorporation of the smart technologies in injection Delta fields to improve recovery and delay water
wells has not been widely considered before this work, breakthrough.
hence the originality.The world’s demand for oil
product is increasing gradually and lack of new Introduction
significant discoveries has made it imperative to look Waterflooding is a type of secondary recovery
for secondary processes and better technology that mechanism; Dake’s defined it as adopting a policy of
will help increase oil production. One of the secondary water or gas injection, with the aim of complete or
recovery mechanism used all over the world is partial pressure maintenance and accelerated
waterflooding. Waterflooding is used in nearly all the development through the positive displacement of oil
fields in the world, it is used after natural depletion, towards the Producing wells1.
and it’s used for pressure maintenance and volumetric Waterflooding is basically the pumping of water
sweep of the reservoir. Smart well technology is through an injection well into the reservoir. This
another technology that is assisting in increasing oil injected water helps to sweep the oil towards the
production, it’s a non-convectional well with downhole production well. When the first injected water gets to
instrumentation (sensors, valves and inflow control the production well, it indicates the breakthrough point
devices) installed on the production or injection tubing. of the injection system. After this point, there will be
This work presents a methodology where high watercut, from the producer well until it becomes
waterflooding is been controlled by smart injector well uneconomical to run the field. On the average, about
technology to help optimize or increase the net present one-third of the Original Oil in Place (OOIP) is
value of the Field. recovered, leaving two-third of the Original Oil in Place
The optimization procedure was done on three (OOIP). Other secondary recovery methods or
different case studies of commingled reservoir having Enhanced Oil Recovery method can be considered at
different layer characteristics; it involves vertical smart this point.
injector well and production well penetrating fully Water injection is the dominant fluid injection method
through the commingled reservoir. A set-up used around the world and is without question
optimization procedure was applied, were rate responsible for the current high level of production rate
allocation method was used at each zone of the smart and reserves. Its popularity is accounted for by:
injector well. In this research, the right rate allocation • availability of water
to each zone that gives the maximum Oil recovery or • Relative ease with which water is injected,
highest Net Present Value gives the answer to the owing to the hydraulic head it possesses in
Waterflood Optimization setback. The smart injector the injection well.
well use in this research has Inflow control Valves • Ability with which water spreads through an
which can automatically open and close in order to oil-bearing formation.
meet certain reservoir or production requirements. 2
• Water’s efficiency in displacing oil .
Installing Smart Completion on the injector well gives Since the total number of new significant discoveries
an opportunity to control all cases of early water are decreasing rapidly and the world fuel consumption
breakthrough and reduce water recycling in some is increasing gradually; therefore, the best method
reservoir layers; which will ultimately lead to an need to bridge this gap is to produce existing field
increase of 2% - 8% in the Net Present Value and 6% more efficiently, so as to recover more from our
- 9% Cumulative Production of from the field. reservoirs and to meet the future demands.
2 SPE 136996

Almost all the field’s in the world uses Waterflooding as independent wells. Down hole measurements will
so as to increase or improve the recovery of their be gotten from the smart wells so as to help us
fields. In many of these reservoirs however, watercut optimize the reservoir.
from the production wells are very high and sometimes Ahmed H. Alhuthali et al optimization process involved
uneconomical thereby leading to low ultimate optimizing well rates to improve sweep. In its
recoveries3. Two of the common problems that plague application it, he optimized rates of the producer wells
waterfloods are poor sweep efficiency and low contact and also worked on a communicating reservoir using
factor. The contact factor is determined by improper Frontsim application. In this approach, rate
displacement in a direction orthogonal to reservoir optimization will be done on a smart injector well that
strata. In a laterally heterogeneous system or when will be used to optimize a commingled reservoir. The
bedding planes exhibit anisotropy, poor areal optimization process will be carried out on three
displacement efficiency is expected. That is, for a distinct reservoirs, the commingled reservoir, reservoir
given economically acceptable watercut in the in communication and varying vertical permeability
production wells, large areas of the reservoir are left reservoir.
with high oil saturation4.Different methods have been
analysed to solve this problem, In this case, Inflow Inflow control valves will be used on Injection wells, it
control valves will be used to mitigate the poor areal expands the possibilities to manipulate and control
displacement. fluid-flow paths through the oil reservoir. The ability to
The concept of controlling production was first manipulate (to some degree) the progression of the
suggested by Rinaldi (1987). Optimization of oil/water front provides the possibility to search for a
waterflooding using optimal control theorem to allocate control strategy that will result in maximization of
5
injection/production rates for fixed well configurations ultimate oil recovery .
where done by Asheim13, Sudaryanto and Yortos
(2001) and Brouwer et al (2001). Asheim13 studied Intelligent Wells
optimization of water flooding for multiple vertical When Inflow Control Valves are used on wells they are
injection wells, and a single vertical production well called intelligent or smart wells. Smart well technology
(artificial water drive). He also studied a scenario with is a non-convectional well with downhole
two vertical production wells and a natural aquifer instrumentation (sensors, valves and inflow control
(natural water drive). The optimization objective he devices) installed on the production or injection tubing.
used was maximum Net Present Value (NPV). As Such wells allow for the continuous in-situ monitoring
base case, he used rate allocation based on the of fluid flow rates and Pressure and the remote
permeability thickness product. Sudaryanto and Yortos adjustment of downhole valves5. The data can be
(2001) studied optimization of water flooding at water- analysed and then used to adjust the zonal flow
breakthrough for two vertical injection wells, and a control devices command from surface. The downhole
single vertical production well for incompressible fluids information could be used directly for automatic
(total injection equals total production at all times). He downhole flow control; but this step has not yet been
used ‘‘bang-bang’’ optimal control theory in which taken6. Smart wells technology gives us the
wells operate only on their extremes (fully open or opportunity to counteract the effect of high
closed). Optimization of the displacement process was permeability zones that have high influence on the
done by optimization of the switch times for opening or recovery because they can cause early water
closing of the injection wells. As a base case he used breakthrough and trapping of by-passed oil7.
a scenario in which the injection rates remain constant
throughout the displacement process and are chosen
such as to get simultaneous breakthrough at the
producer. One major difference between the
approaches followed by Asheim and Sudaryanto is
that in Asheim optimization the injection and/or
production profiles changed gradually over time,
whereas in Sudaryanto’s ‘‘bang-bang’’ approach the
injection profiles changed abruptly. What both
methods have in common is that

they used combinations of two sources and one sink,

14
or two sinks and one source .
This optimization process will be using the Smart well
technology on the vertical injector well and on vertical
production well. Smart well technology will help to
isolate the reservoir into different segments using Fig.1. Sample of ICV for a Non-communicating
Inflow control device and the Packers. Each segment Reservoir
can then be treated separately and they will be treated
SPE 136996 3

To realize this, the following three key elements are If this continues the field can get to its economic limit
generally required: in no time. But if the water injected into the topmost
layer is stopped and more flooding is done to second
1.) Flow Control: The ability to segment the layer, it will immediately reduce watercut and also give
wellbore into individual flow units or zones, and an efficient areal displacement of the reservoir. Also
control the inflow or outflow of fluids in each Smart injectors can also help identify thief zones in
zone without physical intervention, by the use injector wells; this zone could then be controlled by
8
of downhole interval control valves. These downhole valve to obtain better injection efficiency .
inflow control valves may be binary (on/off), Intelligent well systems present numerous advantages
multi-position, or infinitely variable, the latter in the area of accelerated production and maintain a
two providing the ability to constrain or choke longer plateau period when compared to convectional
flow into or from the zone, and thus provide completion techniques. Below are some of the benefits
greater ability for control and optimization. of using intelligent wells:
• Unwanted water production can be turned off
2.) Flow Monitoring: the ability to generate data from a particular zone in the well; this
about key reservoir parameters such as capability boosts oil production while reducing
pressure, temperature, flow and fluid water handling at the surface.
composition, in real time, at frequencies • Control water injection will help improve
suitable for analysis and understanding about sweep efficiencies and ultimately increase oil
the well and reservoir performance. The data recovery.
may come from electronic or optical sensors • Data can be collected for each interval, which
located downhole, in close proximity to the enhances reservoir improved reservoir
reservoir, acquiring reservoir parameter data, in 9
description .
the ideal implementation, from each zone.
Production Optimization
3.) Flow Optimization: the ability to collect the
Optimization not only describes increased ultimate
downhole reservoir parameter data, combine it
recovery but also enhances uptime of mechanical
with other relevant gathering and process
systems, decreased effort on the part of the field
production data, store and transmit this data,
management personnel and the ability to react quickly
provide analysis capabilities to generate
to abnormal production conditions. Each of these
information and insight about the reservoir
optimization elements relies strongly upon the ability to
performance, make informed decisions to
visualize the oftentimes fuzzy relationships between
modify the well completion architecture using
disparate data sources10.
the downhole flow control, and implement the
The procedure is carried out on a commingled
changes to settings of the Inflow control Valves
16 reservoir using multi-zone injection wells which
in a timely manner .
depends on variable flow control for distribution of
Intelligent Injection wells are wells that are equipped water to ensure balance voidage replacement.
with Outflow control Valves and packers to help Intelligent wells optimization can be done using two
separate the reservoir into different segments, with methods, which are:
each segments having its own control devices, so that • Set-point Optimization
it can be controlled based on the information being
received at the surface. The control device can be • Parametric Optimization
open and closed, so that desired zones can be
Set-point Optimization: is the ability to determine the
flooded.
appropriate artificial lift settings, surface production
choke setting and interval control valves settings to
produce a well at or as close to a specific set of flow
conditions.

Parametric Optimization: is the ability to determine the

appropriate artificial lift settings, surface production
choke setting and interval control valves settings to
maximise (or minimize, as appropriate) a specific
production parameter while maintaining other
Fig.2. Sample of Communicating Reservoir production parameters .
16

With these the problem of uniform frontal displacement

can be solved in reservoirs. In fig. 2 above, the first Set-point optimization will be used for this research
layer flooding as breakthrough already while the where optimal injection rate will be determined for
second layer is still behind, further flooding of the top each layer and this rate will be set constant on the
layer will lead to higher watercut at the topmost layer. smart injector wells. This Optimization procedure of
4 SPE 136996

Waterflooding using optimal control theory has located on the 2, 2 areal point on the reservoir while
significant potential to increase ultimate recovery by the producer well was located on the 9, 9 areal point.
delaying water breakthrough and increasing sweep See Fig3.2. These well were drilled across the five
efficiency11. Increasing the recovery entails projecting layers of the reservoir and a three Inflow control
into the future of a proposed field; this can be done by Valves was used on the injector well and with the help
using reservoir simulation model. Simulation model is of open hole packers, zonal isolation was achieved on
one which shows the main feature of a real field, or the model. The injector well was built as a multi-
resembles it in its behaviour, but is simple enough to segmented well in SCHEDULE with packers set on the
make analysis on12. The ultimate goal of reservoir shale layers to isolate the zones. Total field Fluid
simulation is to compute the best production scheme. production rate was 10000bbls/day while each zonal
With current simulators, this goal is pursued by trial injection was 3333.3bbls/day.
and error; the reservoir engineer is left to decide how
the operating parameters should be changed to
improve result, and when the search should be
terminated13. Black oil simulation model will be used
on the Schlumberger eclipse model for the
optimization analysis. The optimization procedure will
be done on three different field scenarios.

Reservoir Model description

This chapter entails model description of three
different case studies that were used for the
optimization analysis. These different field scenarios
were run on the Schlumberger Eclipse simulator. The
model description of each case is reported below:-
Case Study 1
In this study the reservoir simulator, used was a
commercial Black oil model called Eclipse. A simple Fig.4. Case study 1 Reservoir model
three-dimensional model was built with a no flow
boundary on all sides of the model. On areal the grid is Case Study 2
made up of 100 blocks (10 X 10 blocks) while five It has the same model as case-study 1; the difference
layers was used on the vertical direction, given a total between case study 1 and 2 is that it has 4 producer
of 500 blocks. The reservoir top is 7900ft deep with wells and 1 smart injector well. This was done in other
thickness of 250ft, and an areal area of 250 000ft2 to analyse the optimization in a multiple sink scenario.
while the true vertical depth (TVD) of the well is 8150ft. The smart injector well was positioned at the heart of
Since this procedure will be done on a commingled the model, while the producers are located at the
reservoir with each layer having different Petro- flanks of the reservoir.
physical characteristics. Layer 1 on the vertical is
assumed to be a homogenous sandstone body with
permeability of 400md and porosity is assumed to be
0.30. Layer 2 and 4 are assumed to be a shale body
that does not contain hydrocarbon reserves. Layer 3
and 5 is also assumed to be homogenous sandstone
with permeability of 50md and 100md respectively
while porosity is 0.09 and 0.15 respectively.

Fig.5. Case study 2 Reservoir model

For base case, a voidage balance of one on one was

used; the producer well has a combined oil rate of
Fig.3. Relative Permeability Curve
10000bbls/day while the smart injector well had an
As a base case, two wells were used smart injector
equal allocation of 3333.3bbls/day. Also, it has an
well and a Producer well. The smart injector well was
economic limit of 75% oil production.
SPE 136996 5

Case study 3
It has the same model as that of case-study 2; the
difference between case study 2 and 3 is that it’s the
heterogeneity of the layers, the layers are not
homogenous. The porosity distribution in the reservoir
at each layer is homogenous with layer 1 having a
porosity of 0.30 while layers 2 and 3 have porosity
0.10 and 0.15 respectively. The heterogeneity
permeability of each layer is 800md, 50md and 150md
respectively. Each layer as varying layer permeability,
this was done to study a very close scenario to real life
reservoir situation. The smart injector well was
positioned at the heart of the model, while the
producers are located at the flanks of the reservoir just
like case study 2. Fig 4.1.2 Case Study 1 Plot Showing Field Oil Production
Several set point optimization sensitivities were run on Total of Basecase and Optimized case versus Time
the smart injector well to find the best possible rate
allocation to each zone that will give the desired
optimization. This was done on case study 1, 2 and 3.

Result and Discussion

This chapter presents and analysis the results
obtained from this project work. The optimization
process was done on three different cases, which can
be found below.
Base case (Case study 1)
When the base case is put on continuous production,
Field Oil efficiency is 53.06%, Field Oil Production
Total is 47323.8bbls, and Field Water Cut Total is
74.92% .See Chart 4.1.1 – 4.1.3. Water breakthrough
occurs at 1825days this occurred at 18.7% recovery.
The static model was run under voidage replacement Figure 4.1.3 Case Study 1 Plot Showing Field Water Cut
constraint; that is, the total field production is equal to Total of Basecase and Optimized case versus Time
the total field injection.
Optimized case (case study 1)
The smart injector well was built as a multi-segmented
well in SCHEDULE with packers set on the shale
layers to isolate the zones. New rates where then used
at each zonal isolation in the smart injector after
optimization. The best rate combinations for each of
the zones are reported, but the static optimization was
performed under voidage replacement constraint.
Also, the total injection rate in the base case and
optimized case is constant. Field Oil efficiency is 62%,
Field Oil Production Total is 55096bbls, and Field
Water Cut Total is 57% after optimization .See Chart
4.1.1 – 4.1.3. Water breakthrough occurs at 2190days
this was at 26% recovery.
Figure 4.1.1 Case Study 1 Plot Showing Field Oil
Efficiency of Basecase and Optimized case versus Time Base case (Case study 2)
When the base case is put on continuous production,
Field Oil efficiency is 53.4%, Field Oil Production Total
is 47623bbls, and Field Water Cut Total is 74.79%
.See Chart 4.2.1- 4.2.3 Water breakthrough occurs at
1095days after production started. The static model
was run under voidage replacement constraint; that is,
the total field production is equal to the total field
injection.
6 SPE 136996

optimization. The best rate combinations for each of

the zones are reported, but the static optimization was
performed under voidage replacement constraint.
Also, the total injection rate in the base case and
optimized case is constant. Field Oil efficiency is
59.21%, Field Oil Production Total is 52802bbls, and
Field Water Cut Total is 74.8% after optimization .See
Chart 4.2.1-4.2.3. Water breakthrough occurs at
approximately 1095days after start of production.
Base case (Case study 3)
When the base case is put on continuous production,
Field Oil efficiency is 51.7%, Field Oil Production Total
is 46073bbls, and Field Water Cut Total is 71.7% .See
Chart 4.1.1 – 4.1.3 Water breakthrough occurs at
1460days after production started. The static model
Figure 4.2.1 Case Study 2 Plot Showing Field Oil was run under voidage replacement constraint; that is,
Efficiency of Basecase and Optimized case versus the total field production is equal to the total field
Time injection.

Optimized case (case study 3)

The smart injector well was built as a multi-segmented
well in SCHEDULE with packers set on the shale
layers to isolate the zones. New rates where then used
at each zonal isolation in the smart injector after
optimization. The best rate combinations for each of
the zones are reported, but the static optimization was
performed under voidage replacement constraint.
Also, the total injection rate in the base case and
optimized case is constant. Field Oil efficiency was
57.3%, Field Oil Production Total was 51096bbls, and
Field Water Cut Total was 66% after optimization .See
Chart 4.1.1 – 4.1.3 Water breakthrough occurs at
1825days after production started.
Fig 4.2.2 Case Study 2 Plot Showing Field Oil
Production Total of Basecase and Optimized case Table1. Summary of result
versus Time
Parameters Base Case Optimized Case
Case Study 1 FOE 53.06% 61.78%
FOPT 47323.86bbls 55096.81bbls
FWCT 74.92% 57%
Case Study 2 FOE 53.4% 59.2%
FOPT 47623.16bbls 52802.01bbls
FWCT 74.79% 74.8%
Case Study 3 FOE 51.7% 57.3%
FOPT 46073bbls 51096bbls
FWCT 71.7% 66%

Fig 4.2.3 Case Study 2 Plot Showing Field Oil Cost Benefits of Smart Well Technology
Production Total of Basecase and Optimized case The cost of this approach is quite difficult to analyse
versus Time since it’s a commingled reservoir, for optimum
recovery more wells will be need and in other to have
Optimized case (case study 2) fewer wells, smart wells was employed. The use of
The smart injector well was built as a multi-segmented smart well technology lead to lower capital expense
well in SCHEDULE with packers set on the shale and lower operating expenses. Also for a commingled
layers to isolate the zones. New rates where then used reservoir, a set flow rate in each layer can be
at each zonal isolation in the smart injector after maintained in two separate ways. We may inject with
SPE 136996 7

separate fixed flow-rate pumps into each layer with no Also, the efficiency of smart injector wells should also
throttling downhole – an expensive option. A less be compared with of smart production wells.
expensive approach which is used in this research is
to use a single pump for all layers combined. We Acknowledgements
measure the independent layer flow rates and throttle The author would like to acknowledge and appreciate
the valves for independent completions to maintain the the assistance been rendered by David Olowoleru,
rates3. David Davies Dr and Eric Mackay Dr All of Heriot Watt
Installing smart completion will lead to an increase in University.
Net Present Value and cumulative production after the
optimization process. See Chart 4.1.2, 4.2.2 and 4.3.2. Nomenclature
Percentage NPV increases from 2% to 8% while NPV Net Present Value
increase in cumulative production is between 6% and FOE Field Oil Efficiency
9% after optimization. This Net Present value did not FWCT Field Water Cut
incorporate delay in water breakthrough and reduce FOPT Field Oil Production Total
overall Field Water Production Total after optimization WOC water-oil contact depth (m)
which will lead to reduce water handling cost for the
firm. The Net Present value was calculated using the References
cost of ICV’s at $250 000 and a barrel of oil at $50.
1. The Practise of Reservoir Engineering by L.P
Conclusion and Recommendation Dake’s.
2. The Reservoir Engineering Aspect of
A new method of Waterflooding optimization for a Waterflooding by Forrest F Craig Jr.
commingled reservoir has been presented in this 3. SPE 84219-PA-P, T.S. Ramakrishnan “On
project. The methodology builds on the installation of Reservoir Fluid Flow Control with Smart
smart wells and rate allocation; this method has been Completion” presented at the 2003 SPE
successfully applied on three different commingled Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
reservoir case studies. Denver, 5-8 October.
The impacts of this optimization strategy are as 4. SPE 102913, G.M. van Essen, SPE, M.J.
follows:- Zandvliet, SPE, P.M.J. Van den Hof, and
1.) It leads to an increase in the expected Net O.H. Bosgra, Delft U. of Technology; and
Present Value and also a cumulative J.D. Jansen, SPE, Delft U. Of Technology
improvement of production up to 8% on the and Shell Int. E&P “Robust Waterflooding
average from the three case studies carried Optimization of Multiple Geological
out. Scenarios”
2.) Smart wells provide optimum solutions to 5. Production Technology Module Manual,
recovering multiple reservoirs from one Institute Of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot
wellbore, which will help reduce capital Watt University 2005.
expense and lower operating expenses. Also, 6. SPE 120509, L.Saputeli, SPE, Hess
the methodology of controlling the reservoir Corporation; K.Ramirez, SPE, J. Chegin,
with smart injection well will help to reduce the SPE, S.Cullick, SPE Halliburton. “Waterflood
cost of installing smart wells on all production Recovery Optimization Using Intelligent
wells; since one injector well can control four Wells and Decision Analysis” Prepared for
or more production wells. presentation at the 2009 SPE Latin American
3.) Delayed water production and reduced Field and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Water Production Total were experience after Conference Held in Cartagena, Colombia, 31
optimization; this will help reduce the cost on May-3June 2009.
water handling for companies. 7. SPE 115725, B.L. Thigpen, SPE, S.A.
4.) Outcome from study and from literature review Sakowski, SPE, X. Wang, SPE, X. Liu, SPE,
indicates that production can be accelerated. and J. Lee, SPE, Baker Hughes. “Active
5.) Better Understanding of the reservoir will be Management of Five-Spot Water Flood
gained Based on Continuous Reservoir Monitoring.
This paper was prepared for presentation at
Recommendation the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference
Although the model is simple, it takes into account and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado,
recent technology of optimizing a commingled USA, 21-24 September 2008.
reservoir. More work should still be on discretise layers 8. SPE 78278-PA, Brouwer, D. R. And Jansen,
in vertical direction so see effects of gravity within J. D. 2004. Dynamic Optimization of
layers, and to remove barrier layers to see effect of Waterflooding with smart Wells Using
communication in reservoir. Optimal Control Theory. SPEJ 9(4): 391-402
8 SPE 136996

9. Reservoir Simulation Module Manual, Institute Presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation

Of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot Watt Symposium, 2-4 February 2009, The
University 2005. Woodlands, Texas, USA.
10. SPE 18365, Asheim H. 1988. Maximization of 18. SPE 63221 Baris Guyaguler, SPE, Roland N.
Water Sweep Efficiency by Controlling Horne, SPE, (Stanford University) Leah
Production and Injection Rates prepared Rogers, SPE, (Lawrence Livermore National
presented at the SPE European Petroleum Laboratory) Jacob J. Rosenzweig, (BP-
Conference, London, UK, October 16-19, Amoco) prepared for presentation at the
1988 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
11. SPE 68979-MS, Brouwer, D. R, Jansen, J. D, Exhibition held in Texas, 1-4 October 2000.
van der Starre, S. Van Kruijsdijk, C.P.J.W 19. SPE-102478-PA-P, Ahmed H. Alhuthali, SPE,
and Berentsen, C.W.J 2001. Recovery Dayo Oyerinde, SPE, and Akhil Datta-Gupta,
Increase through Waterflooding with Smart SPE, Texas A & M University, Optimal
Well Technology. Waterflood Management Using Rate Control,
12. www.theinside.org/news/article.asp?id=0423 prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE
13. SPE 99690, Lorentzen, R. J., Berg, M. A., Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Naevdal, G. and Vefring, E. H.,”A New San Antonio, Texas, 24-27 September.
Approach for Dynamic Optimization of Water 20. Dynamic Optimization of a Water Flood
Flooding Problems”, prepared for Reservoir by Jude Nwaozo
presentation at the SPE Intelligent Energy
Conference and Exhibition held in Appendix A
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 11-13 April
2006.
14. SPE 108392, Liping Zhang, Maersk Oil Qatar;
Liqing Zhou and Mohammed Al-Mugheiry,
Daleel Petroleum; and Kuangda Xu, Tuha
Downhole Operation Company, Horizontal
Waterflooding in Shuaiba Carbonate
Reservoir of Daleel Field in Oman: From
Pilots' Performance To Development Era
prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11-14
November 2007.
15. SPE 85676-MS, M. Konopczynski, SPE; A.
Ajayi, SPE; and Leigh-Ann Russell, SPE, Case Study 3 Plot Showing Field Oil Efficiency of Basecase and Optimized
WellDynamics International Limited. case versus Time
Intelligent Well Completion: Status and
Opportunities for Developing Marginal
Reserves, this paper was prepared for
th
presentation at the 30 Annual SPE
International Technical Conference and
Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, July 31-August
2, 2005.
16. SPE106933, M. Konopczynski, SPE; A. Ajayi,
SPEWellDynamics International Limited.
Applying Downhole Real-Time Data and
Composite IPR Technology To Optimize
Production of Multiple-zone Intelligent Wells,
prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE
Digital Energy Conference and Exhibition
held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 11-12 April
2007. Case Study 3 Plot Showing Field Oil Production Total of Basecase and
17. SPE 118808, Alexandre A. Emerick, SPE, Optimized case versus Time
Petrobras S.A., and Eugênio Silva, Bruno
Messer, Luciana F. Almeida, Dilza
Szwarcman, Marco Aurélio C. Pacheco, and
Marley M.B.R. Vellasco, PUC-Ri. Well
Placement Optimization Using a Genetic
Algorithm with Nonlinear Constraints.
SPE 136996 9

Case Study 3 Plot Showing Field Water Cut Total of Figure B-3 Field Water Production Reservoir of Base case
Basecase and Optimized case versus Time versus Optimized case

Appendix B- Case-study 1

Figure B-1 Field Reservoir Pressure of Base case versus

Optimized case
.

Figure B-2 Field Water Production Total of Base case

versus Optimized case