See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304369272

A Case Study on Miscible and Immiscible Gas-Injection Pilots in a Middle East

Carbonate Reservoir in an Offshore Environment

Article  in  SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · June 2016

DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA

CITATIONS READS

6 554

3 authors, including:

Jitendra Kumar Pawan Agrawal

TOTAL Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
7 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jitendra Kumar on 16 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 REE181758 DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA Date: 4-February-17 Stage: Page: 19 Total Pages: 11

A Case Study on Miscible and

Immiscible Gas-Injection Pilots in a
Middle East Carbonate Reservoir in
an Offshore Environment
Jitendra Kumar, Pawan Agrawal, and Elyes Draoui, Abu Dhabi Marine Operating Company

Summary ment plan (Al-Shamsi et al. 2012). Additional miscible gas-

Hydrocarbon-gas injection is one of the most widely applied proc- injection pilots [carbon dioxide (CO2)] were implemented in con-
esses in the oil industry and is a promising enhanced-oil-recovery tinuous- and WAG-injection schemes in a tight, heterogeneous
(EOR) method for use in Middle East carbonate oil fields. Gas carbonate field onshore Abu Dhabi, resulting in an improvement
injection improves the microscopic-displacement efficiency and in sweep efficiency (Al-Basry et al. 2011; Figuera et al. 2014).
generally acts as pressure maintenance; however, unfavorable mo- These gas-injection pilots indicate the promise of gas injection
bility ratio can negatively affect the ultimate recovery because of (dry/wet/sweet) as a viable EOR option for Abu Dhabi oil fields.
viscous fingering and gravity override. The carbonate field studied here is part of the Lower Creta-
This paper describes two gas-injection pilots that have been ceous (Hauterivian) lower Lekhwair formation (Alsharhan and
implemented in offshore Middle East carbonate reservoirs: a sec- Nairn 1997). The succession was deposited in a shallow water,
ondary and a tertiary gas injection through line drive to assess low-topography carbonate ramp system within an intrashelf basin
injectivity, productivity, macroscopic-sweep efficiency, flow of the Arabian plate, which was surrounded by the Neo-Tethys
assurance, and operational efficiency in a field that has a long passive margins. The field is divided into three reservoirs, A, B,
water-injection history. A strong monitoring plan, including an and C, which are 20 to 35 ft thick individually. Each of them is
observer well, was applied through time-lapse saturation logging, vertically separated by nonpay tight interval of similar thickness,
pressure measurements, production testing, and a tracer campaign made of argillaceous limestone, and each reservoir is isolated
to evaluate the pilot efficiency and address key uncertainties from the others. Within the reservoir, a Bacinella/Lithocodium-
upfront before full-field application. rich facies is the most common, and has good reservoir quality
This paper describes the pilot performance in the context of (/  23.5% and k  22 md). Less common is an oolitic shoal fa-
full-field development, local- and macroscopic-displacement effi- cies, which hosts the best reservoir quality (/  25% and k  80
ciency, flow-assurance issues, and operational learnings. The gas- md) and potentially acts as high-permeability streaks. Depending
injection performance is strongly affected by reservoir heteroge- on the reservoir, oolitic shoal facies can be more abundant,
neity, gravity segregation, and the existing pressure gradient, and enhancing the overall reservoir quality. Core data from different
the history match performed indicates near-miscible or miscible areas of the field show that rock wettability in the field varies with
behavior depending upon local pressure regimes, which thus gov- depth. Near the flank area the formation is water-wet, and as we
ern the ultimate recovery. The history match also shows that for move toward the crestal area, the formation becomes oil-wet
the same pilot, performance can be further improved through (Marzouk 1999).
water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection, resulting in a viable de- The reservoir fluid is undersaturated at initial pressure of 4,200
velopment scheme for full-field implementation. psig at datum depth and temperature of 220 F.  API value is 40,
and the oil contains 1–2 mol% of CO2 and insignificant amounts
of H2S. All three reservoirs have common contact and similar oil
Introduction properties, with a strong compositional gradient. The production
The first gas-injection pilot in offshore Abu Dhabi was performed from the field started in the late 1960s through natural depletion,
in the early 1990s. Results indicated that immiscible gas injection which indicated weak aquifer support. Initially, the pressure sup-
in a carbonate reservoir can significantly improve recovery in port was started through gravity-driven dumpflood-water injection
mature fields, but that the reservoir heterogeneity strongly affects from overlying aquifers for 10 years. However, in the late 1970s,
volumetric-sweep efficiency and should not be neglected in full- the full-field development started through peripheral-seawater
field applications (Stofferis and Boibien 1995; Nicolle et al. 1998; injection for pressure support and improvement in peripheral-
Bonnin et al. 2002). Five confined immiscible five-spot-pattern sweep efficiency (Pavangat et al. 2015). In the late 2000s, along
pilots were implemented in the early 2000s to evaluate the effect with peripheral injection, the crestal-gas injection in the gas cap
of heterogeneity and secondary/tertiary gas-injection efficiency in was also introduced to improve pressure support and sweep effi-
a giant carbonate reservoir offshore Abu Dhabi (Dabbouk et al. ciency near the crestal area through immiscible displacement.
1996). These pilots demonstrated the effect of gravity segregation Before pilot implementation, laboratory experiments were per-
on gas breakthrough and the importance of well placement in a formed to determine the feasibility of hydrocarbon-gas injection.
thick pay zone. Asphaltene deposition near the wellbore was also Pressure/volume/temperature experiments showed that the mini-
observed in these pilots, highlighting potential flow-assurance mum miscibility pressure (MMP) is approximately 4,500 psia,
issues of gas injection (Konwar et al. 2011). After this, two im- which is higher than initial reservoir pressure, but the crude oil
miscible WAG-injection pilots were performed onshore Abu has a strong swelling effect (swells by a factor of 1.45 once satu-
Dhabi, resulting in improvements in sweep efficiency and recov- rated with gas). Unsteady-state coreflood experiments performed
ery and justifying inclusion of this strategy in the field-develop- with a 200-cm-long core showed recovery of 70% for immiscible
flood, but recovery of 92% for miscible flood (Kumar et al. 2015).
Full-field compositional simulation of gas injection incorporat-
Copyright V
C 2017 Society of Petroleum Engineers
ing a tuned equation of state indicated an incremental recovery of
This paper (SPE 181758) was revised for publication from paper IPTC 18513, first presented 5% compared with waterflood at the field scale, and an increase in
at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 6–9 December 2015.
Original manuscript received for review 28 September 2015. Revised manuscript received for pressure support. The pilots were planned in all three reservoirs of
review 6 May 2016. Paper peer approved 13 May 2016. the field to validate the incremental stakes at smaller scale and

February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 19

ID: jaganm Time: 16:19 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160046/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160046

 REE181758 DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA Date: 4-February-17 Stage: Page: 20 Total Pages: 11

l-1 l-2 Obs-1 P-1

Dual-string
producer

Peripheral-water injection

Original OWC Reservoir A

Hor. Inj. (l-1)

Hor. Inj. (l-2)
Obs-1 PA-2
3,280 ft
P-1
Reservoir B
PA-1 PA-3

PA-4 PA-5

0 920 1,380 3,280

Pilot A corresponds to Reservoir A and Pilot B corresponds to Reservoir B ft ft ft

Fig. 1—Schematic of location and well orientation of Pilot A and Pilot B (left: areal; right: vertical). Hor. Inj 5 horizontal injector,
Obs 5 observer, and OWC 5 oil/water contact.

reduce uncertainties and risks associated with gas injection. Two Reservoir A. The producer is 3,280 ft away from the midpoint of
unconfined pilots with an observer well and one confined produc- the horizontal section of the injector, as shown in Fig. 1. The ob-
ing pilot with an observer well were selected for execution to server well was 1,380 ft away from the injector and was also com-
assess injectivity, productivity, and displacement efficiency, as pleted with dual strings, similar to P-1. The nearby oil producers
well as vertical- and areal-sweep efficiency. The design and moni- (Wells PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3) were shut-in during the pilot pe-
toring program of the planned pilots are described in detail by Al- riod to avoid interference, which could have jeopardized pilot
Hendi et al. (1998). This paper describes only the two unconfined- interpretation. The other producers (Wells PA-4 and PA-5),
gas-injection pilots. located away from the pilot area, were on production to assess the
areal-sweep efficiency and can be used as a control point during
Pilot Description the history-match exercise. Well PA-4 was completed as a single
string in Reservoir A only, whereas Well PA-5 was completed
Pilot-A and Pilot-B. Two gas-injection pilots were performed in with dual strings, perforated in both the reservoirs, with the long
the two reservoirs of the field. In the overlying Reservoir A, injec- string in Reservoir B and the short string in Reservoir A.
tion occurred in secondary mode into the oil pool, whereas in the Openhole logs showed that the pilot area is vertically homoge-
underlying Reservoir B, tertiary injection was performed in the neous and uniform in porosity and permeability, with no evidence
transition zone, close to the oil/water contact in an area that had of baffles or barriers, as shown in Fig. 2. The average oil satura-
already experienced peripheral-water injection, as shown in Fig. tion along the zone is estimated to be 75% by use of a different
1. The injected gas was from the first-stage separator, with major set of logs.
components consisting of methane (76 mol%), ethane (14 mol%), Injection/Production Performance. Fig. 3 shows the injec-
propane (5 mol%), and CO2 (2 mol%), and minor constituents tion and production performance of the pilot. The gas injection
including butane, pentane, and nitrogen. started in March 2002 with an average monthly injection rate of
10 MMscf/D over the first 3 months, followed by 25-MMscf/D
Pilot A: Description and Performance. Pilot A was a secondary injections until it was further reduced back to 10 MMscf/D after
gas injection in the oil-pool area, where the average pressure in gas breakthrough in the producer well. In total, the pilot injected
the pilot area is lower than the MMP value by 600 psi (Fig. 2). 23 Bscf of gas, which corresponds to 1.18 pore volumes (PVs) in
Well configuration was line-drive, consisting of a horizontal in- 8 years.
jector (I-1), a vertical producer (P-1), and an observer (Obs-1), as Production started as dry oil for 3 years, with rate variations
shown in Fig. 1. The injector was perforated at the lower part of between 2500 and 3500 STB/D until gas breakthrough occurred
the reservoir and was approximately 2,500 ft long. The producer in 2004 (Fig. 3). After breakthrough, gas/oil ratio (GOR)
well was completed with dual strings, perforated across all the increased steeply from 750 to 5,000 scf/STB, and after 2005 the
layers, with the long string in Reservoir B and the short string in producing well was shut-in because of surface-facility constraints.

Obs-1 P-1
00

05
TVDSS (ft) (showing last two digits)

10
1,900
15 ft
TVDSS

TVDSS

TVDSS

TVDSS

TVDSS

TVDSS

TVDSS

20

25

30

35

40
0 10 20 30 40 0.1 10 1000 0 25 50 75 100 3,800 3,900 4,000 0 10 20 30 40 0.1 10 1,000 0 25 50 75 100 3,800 3,900 4,000
Porosity (%) Permeability (md) So (%) Pressure (psig) Porosity (%) Permeability (md) So (%) Pressure (psig)

Fig. 2—Porosity, permeability, saturation, and pressure (before pilot began) in Wells Obs-1 and P-1. TVDSS 5 true vertical depth subsea.

20 February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 16:19 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160046/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160046

 REE181758 DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA Date: 4-February-17 Stage: Page: 21 Total Pages: 11

40 6,000 4,000 10

Oil- and Water-Production Rate (STB/D)

Gas-injection rate Wellhead-injection pressure Oil Water GOR

Wellhead-Injection Pressure (psig)

35

Gas-Injection Rate (MMscf/D)

5,000
8
30 3,000

GOR (Mscf/STB)
4,000
25 6
20 3,000 2,000

15 4
2,000
10 1,000
2
1,000
5

0 0 0 0
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 02 03 04 05 06 07
Years Years

Fig. 3—Injector and producer performance in Pilot A.

05
TVDSS (ft) (showing

15
last two digits)

25

35
February June August July July December September April October June November
2003 2003 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008

Fig. 4—Time-lapse saturation measured at Well Obs-1.

Nevertheless, the well was tested biannually to monitor the gas by gas presence throughout the reservoir column in the CNL runs
movement. Injected gas has also been observed at the distant Well from 2008.
PA-4, which is outside the pilot area because its GOR started Producer Well P-1 was sidetracked for coring and openhole
increasing in 2006, and is shown later in the areal and vertical logs in 2010 to evaluate gas-injection performance. Dean-Stark
sweep discussion of the history match. analysis performed on plugs showed a residual fluid saturation in
Monitoring Performance. Before gas injection started, open- the range of 10–30% with an average of 22%. Openhole logs per-
hole-formation-pressure-testing surveys at the producer and formed on the sidetrack well showed that only the top part of the
observer confirmed a reservoir pressure of approximately 3,900 reservoir was swept by gas, with a remaining oil saturation of
psia, which is much lower than the MMP of injected gas (Fig. 2). 20%, whereas the rest of the column has remaining saturation
The permanent-downhole-gauge recording shows that pressure close to the initial oil saturation. This was also confirmed with a
near the producer started increasing with gas injection and formation-pressure-testing tool by collecting bottomhole samples
remained close to MMP during the pilot duration, and is shown from the top and bottom of Reservoir A. The top sample indicated
later in the pressure discussion of the history match. presence of 100% gas, whereas the bottom sample contained a
Vertical sweep was evaluated through cased-hole logs composition similar to that of the original oil.
performed biannually, and results are presented in Fig. 4 for The crude oil has low asphaltene content (0.1 wt%), but as-
the observer well. The compensated-neutron-porosity log (CNL) phaltene deposition was observed in all wells experiencing gas
showed gas presence at the top of the observer well in 2003. The breakthrough. The left side of Fig. 5 shows the asphaltene deposi-
CNL tool calculates porosity and identifies lithology and the pres- tion on the spinner of the production-logging tool when pulled up
ence of gas by making thermal- and epithermal-neutron measure- at the surface, whereas the right side shows the same asphaltene
ments. Subsequent CNL runs indicated that gas was mainly after cooling. Asphaltene deposition was also observed in a previ-
sweeping the top of the reservoir, indicating strong gravity segre- ous near-miscible gas-injection pilot of onshore Abu Dhabi with
gation. CNL results were validated by reservoir-saturation logging an oil of similar composition to the field under consideration
(RST), which also indicated the presence of gas only at the top. (Negahban et al. 2003). The cause of this deposition is the incom-
RST computes the saturation either from carbon/oxygen-ratio patibility between reservoir oil and the accumulation of enriched
measurement or from r measurement. Vertical sweep began gas near the wellbore (Yonebayashi et al. 2009).
increasing after approximately 1 PV injected (PVI), as indicated
History Match of Pilot A. Model Description. The 3D grid
model used for the history-match exercise is derived from the ge-
ological model that was built in Roxar (2012) RMS software,
with a spacing of 250  250 m2 and average layer thickness of 3
ft. The model properties was geostatistically populated by use of
reservoir-rock types. The reservoir-rock types were generated by
considering the petrophysical groups on the basis of the mercury-
injection capillary pressure, lithofacies data, and geology. Upscal-
ing of the geological model was not performed for the construc-
tion of the dynamic model.
A full-field compositional model including a seven-component
EOS tuned with experimental data and 0.4 million grid cells was
used for gas-injection-pilot history match, by use of Schlumberger
(2012) Eclipse300 software, incorporating the pressure-gradient
Fig. 5—Asphaltene precipitation in the production-logging tool effect and peripheral-seawater-injection sweep efficiency. The
at Well P-1. full-field-model grid cells are very big (250  250 m2), and to

February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 21

ID: jaganm Time: 16:19 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160046/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160046

 REE181758 DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA Date: 4-February-17 Stage: Page: 22 Total Pages: 11

0
Obs-1 P-1 P-1
(before pilot starts) (before pilot starts) (after pilot ends)
5

TVDSS (ft) (showing last two digits)

10

15

TVDSS

TVDSS
20

25

30

35
Observed Observed Observed
Simulated Simulated Simulated
40
3,700 4,200 4,700 3,700 4,200 4,700 3,700 4,200 4,700
Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)
*Observed data is obtained from (a) openhole-formation-pressure-testing surveys for before pilot starts case and
(b) permanent-downhole-gauge measurements for after pilot ends case

Fig. 6—Pressure match along the layers of the observer and producer well before/after starting the pilot.

accurately represent the saturation front, local grid refinement was Pressure Match. For the gas injection, agreement with pres-
performed vertically and horizontally in the pilot area to reduce sure data is highly important because it governs the microscopic
the numerical dispersion of composition and saturation front displacement through the miscibility behavior, and hence the ulti-
(Camy and Emanuel 1977; Jerauld 1998; Lawrence et al. 2003). mate recovery. Moreover, in this case, the existing pressure gra-
Moreover, local grid refinement allowed more-accurate represen- dients strongly influenced gas movement, and thus must be well-
tation of well trajectories, which was difficult in the larger grid represented in the pilot area to accurately evaluate gas movement
cells of the full-field model. A value of 5% residual oil to miscible and breakthrough timing. Fig. 6 shows the pressure match of dif-
flood (Sorm), obtained from coreflood experiments (Kumar et al. ferent layers of Wells Obs-1 and P-1 before starting the pilot,
2015), was used to restrict the vaporization of oil components into demonstrating that the model used for the history-match exercise
the gas phase below the user-defined residual oil saturation (ROS) has captured important features of the pressure gradient areally
in a gridblock (Hiraiwa and Suzuki 2007; Bourgeois et al. 2011; and vertically, and is thus a good base from which to start the his-
Patacchini et al. 2015). In the model, the injectors were controlled tory match.
by surface water/gas-injection rate, whereas the producers were A good history match is obtained for the pilot, as shown in
controlled by the surface liquid rate. Fig. 7. The model accurately captures the movement of mobile-

4,000 10
Oil-Production Rate (STB/D) GOR (Mscf/STB)
Observed Observed
Simulated 8 Simulated
3,000

6
2,000
4

1,000
2

0 0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years Years
1 7,000
Water-Cut Average Reservoir Pressure (psia)
6,000
0.8
5,000
Observed
0.6 Simulated 4,000

0.4 3,000
Observed
2,000 Simulated
0.2
1,000

0 0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years Years

Fig. 7—Comparison of oil rate, GOR, water cut, and bottomhole pressure of Well P-1 with observed data.

22 February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 16:20 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160046/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160046

 REE181758 DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA Date: 4-February-17 Stage: Page: 23 Total Pages: 11

2.5 2.5
Well PA-4 Well PA-5

2 2
Observed Observed

GOR (Mscf/STB)

GOR (Mscf/STB)
Simulated Simulated
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Years Years

Fig. 8—GOR match of the nearby wells (Wells PA-4 and PA-5) with observed data.

Layer-1 Areal and Vertical Sweep. Gas breakthrough occurred in

l-1 most of the wells surrounding the pilot area, demonstrating good
areal connectivity. Fig. 8 shows the evolution of GOR in the
Obs-1
nearby wells (Wells PA-4 and PA-5) and the match obtained,
PA-2 which agrees closely with the GOR in both the wells. Fig. 9
shows the areal gas movement in the top layer of the reservoir as
P-1
obtained from the compositional model.
Fig. 10 shows the evolution of gas saturation at Well Obs-1 as
obtained from the history-matched model. It shows that the model
tends to predict the gas-breakthrough timing and gas-movement
PA-3 behavior. However, the magnitude of the gas saturations may be
PA-1
high and cannot be independently confirmed by means of the
CNL and RST time-lapse logs, which tend to be qualitative.
Gas Saturation (fraction)
In 2010, Well P-1 was sidetracked for an openhole log and to
PA-4 PA-5 measure ROS through coring. Fig. 11 shows the change in meas-
0.0 0.1750 0.3500 0.5250 0.7000
ured oil saturation in Well P-1 (difference in oil saturation before
and after gas injection, as obtained by use of Dean-Stark analysis)
Fig. 9—Gas saturation at top layer of Reservoir A in July 2005
(each grid cell is 50 3 50 m2).
and simulated oil saturation. The openhole logs indicate that
approximately 8–10 ft of the top column was swept by gas; the
model predicts the vertical sweep in the same range within the
fluid phases. Moreover, Fig. 6 (right) shows that the model also measurement uncertainty. As mentioned previously, sampling
matches the pressure at the end of the pilot along the sidetracked from the cored well has been performed at two different depths.
producer, indicating that gas injection improved pressure support Although good agreement was obtained between end-of-pilot
and that the pressure is close to MMP, suggesting near-miscible samples and simulated fluid composition at the top of the pro-
flooding in the pilot. Because a very-good match has been ducer well, swelled oil predicted by simulations at the bottom of
obtained, the model will be able to predict the areal and vertical the well was not found in the collected sample. This discrepancy
efficiency with high confidence. may be because of the numerical-dispersion effect in the

Sg Sg Sg Sg Sg
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
10
12

14
TVDSS (ft) (showing last two digits)

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30
July 2003 July 2005 December 2005 July 2007 November 2008
32
34

36

Fig. 10—Evolution of gas saturation at Well Obs-1 as obtained from the simulation model. Sg 5 gas saturation as percent of PV.

February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 23

ID: jaganm Time: 16:20 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160046/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160046

 REE181758 DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA Date: 4-February-17 Stage: Page: 24 Total Pages: 11

Delta Oil Saturation Pilot B: Description and Performance. Pilot B was also a line-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 drive pilot, but was in the waterflooded transition area of Reser-
5
voir B. It was started at the same time as Pilot A and oil was pro-
duced by use of the long string of Well P-1. The long string of
Obs-1 was used to monitor the vertical gas efficiency and pres-
sure. Gas was injected from horizontal injector Well I-2, which is
perforated at the lower part of the reservoir and is approximately
10 2,300 ft long. The producer well is 2,360 ft away from the mid-
point of the horizontal section of the injector, whereas the ob-
server is 460 ft away from injector, as shown in Fig. 1.
Openhole logs performed in the pilot area indicate that the res-
ervoir surrounding Pilot B is not as homogeneous as that sur-
TVDSS (ft) (showing last two digits)

15 rounding Pilot A. Fig. 12 shows the presence of a tight zone 5 ft

above the base of the reservoir and two high-permeability streaks
in the middle of the formation in Well P-1. The average oil satura-
tion in the pilot area is estimated to be approximately 30%
through different sets of logs.
20 The average pressure measured in the pilot area is approxi-
mately 4,900 psia which is higher than the MMP of injected gas.
The formation-pressure-testing survey also indicated the presence
of minor partial baffles caused by a discrepancy in reservoir qual-
ity, and showed a clear pressure differential toward the very base
25 Observed (lower 5 ft) of the reservoir, as shown in Fig. 12 (right).
Injection/Production Performance. Fig. 13 shows the injec-
Simulated tion and production performance of the pilot. The gas injection
started in March 2002 with an average monthly injection rate of
15 MMscf/D over the first 3 months, followed by a rate increase
30 to 25 MMscf/D, then a gradual reduction to 10 MMscf/D after gas
breakthrough. 20 Bscf of gas was injected during this duration,
Fluid-sampling location which corresponds to 1.49 PVI.
Because the pilot was in a transition zone that had already
been waterflooded, the producer showed oil production of
35 300–400 STB/D with 80% water cut soon after gas injection
began. After 1 year of injection, the well was tested and it showed
Fig. 11—Change in oil saturation after pilot ends at Well P-1. an increase in oil production with decrease in water-cut, indicat-
ing arrival of the oil bank and the effectiveness of gas injection.
simulation model, because the grid size is still large compared However, GOR then increased rapidly, indicating gas break-
with the scale at which miscibility phenomenon occurs. through in July 2003, after just 1.5 years of injection. The pro-
The simulation captures the areal and vertical behavior of the ducer well was closed in April 2004 because of surface-facility
pilot in a good range and, on the basis of the pilot area, it suggest constraints. Nevertheless, the well was tested twice yearly to mon-
a recovery of 59% because of near-miscible gas injection. itor the gas movement.

P-1
0

10
TVDSS (ft) (showing last two digits)

15

20
TVDSS

TVDSS

TVDSS

25

30

35

40

45

50
0 10 20 30 40 0.1 10 1,000 0 25 50 4,850 4,900 4,950
Porosity (%) Permeability (md) So (%) Pressure (psig)

Fig. 12—Porosity, permeability, oil saturation, and pressure profile of Well P-1 before pilot began.

24 February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 16:20 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160046/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160046

 REE181758 DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA Date: 4-February-17 Stage: Page: 25 Total Pages: 11

40 6,000 2,500 18

Oil- and Water-Production Rate (STB/D)

Gas-injection rate Wellhead-injection pressure Oil Water GOR

Wellhead-Injection Pressure (psig)

35 16

Gas-Injection Rate (Mscf/D)

5,000
2,000 14
30

GOR (Mscf/STB)
4,000 12
25
1,500
10
20 3,000
8
15 1,000
2,000 6
10
4
1,000 500
5
2
0 0 0 0
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 2002 2003 2004 2005
Years Years

Fig. 13—Injector and producer performance in Pilot B.

Obs-1 P-1 P-1

(before pilot starts) (before pilot starts) (after pilot ends)
5
Observed Observed
10 Simulated Simulated
TVDSS (ft) (showing last two digits)

15

20 1,900 ft

25
TVDSS

TVDSS
30

35

40

45

50 Observed
Simulated
55
4,500 5,000 5,500 4,500 5,000 5,500 4,500 5,000 5,500
Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)

Fig. 14—Pressure match along the layers of the observer and producer wells before/after beginning the pilot.

Monitoring Performance. The pressure survey of the pro- Production-logging tools were used to evaluate vertical-sweep
ducer and observer confirmed that during the whole period of efficiency. The CNL showed the presence of gas in the middle of
injection there was good pressure support in the pilot area and the formation at Well Obs-1, which is in line with the presence of
the pressure always remained higher than the MMP, as shown high-permeability streak. Early breakthrough occurred through
in Fig. 14. this high-permeability streak, as shown in Fig. 15, and afterward
Three perfluorocarbons—perfluorodimethylcyclobutane, per- vertical sweep started improving, as seen by the presence of gas at
fluromethylcyclo-hexane, and 1,2-perfluorodimethylcyclohex- the top of the formation.
ane—were used as gas tracers and were injected in Well I-2 in In 2010, the producer well was side-tracked for coring and
July 2002 to compare their travel time with the producer and openhole logs to evaluate gas-injection performance. Dean-Stark
assess areal sweep. The differing extents of alkylation and per- analysis performed on plugs showed the ROS in the range of
fluoronation of these three tracers results in different partitioning 1–16% with an average of 5%. The low values of saturation were
coefficients and arrival times. The first tracer, perfluorodimethyl- observed in the highly permeable zone, whereas the high values
cyclobutane, was observed 114 days after injection, reflecting the were found in the dense zone, which was swept by much-less gas.
existence of high-permeability streaks. The second tracer was The sampling performed at the top and bottom of the formation
observed after 272 days, which is very close to the gas-break- observed 100% gas, which may indicate the presence of ROS to
through timing. The third tracer was received after 423 days. miscible flood in the vicinity.

10
TVDSS (ft) (showing

20
last two digits)

30

40

50
OH August November August July July December
2002 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005

Fig. 15—Time-lapse saturation measured at Well Obs-1. OH 5 openhole log.

February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 25

ID: jaganm Time: 16:20 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160046/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160046

 REE181758 DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA Date: 4-February-17 Stage: Page: 26 Total Pages: 11

1,500 30
Oil-Production Rate (STB/D) GOR (Mscf/STB)

1,200 25
Observed Observed
Simulated 20
900 Simulated
15
600
10

300 5

0 0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2002 2003 2004 2005
Years Years

1 7,000
Water-Cut Average Reservoir Pressure (psia)
Observed 6,000
0.8 Simulated
5,000
0.6 4,000

0.4 3,000
Observed
2,000 Simulated
0.2
1,000

0 0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2002 2003 2004 2005
Years Years

Fig. 16—Comparison of oil rate, GOR, water cut, and bottomhole pressure of Well P-1 with observed data.

The crude oil has same asphaltene content as Pilot A, but this phenomenon in the compositional simulation because interfa-
unlike Pilot A, asphaltene deposition was not observed in Pilot B cial tension, miscibility behavior, and relative permeability are all
producers. This may be attributed to low initial oil saturation dependent on pressure and compositions. Fig. 14 shows that the
because oil has already been swept by water in the zone around simulation model is able to accurately capture the pressure profile
gas-injection Pilot B. Another possible reason may be that in Pilot along Wells Obs-1 and P-1 before starting the pilot and can be
B, because both water and oil are flowing, asphaltene may act as used to represent the fluid behavior inside the pilot area. Fig. 14
an emulsion-forming agent and can lie at the interface of oil and (right) shows that the pressure evolution in the model is well-rep-
water, which prevents their deposition. This assumption needs to resented because it accurately matches the sidetracked-well-pres-
be validated through laboratory experiments, as well as perhaps sure measurement.
future pilots. Fig. 16 show that an acceptable history match was obtained
that captures the major features of three-phase-fluid movement,
History Match of Pilot B. Model Description. Similar to Pilot and it can be used to predict the areal and vertical efficiency of
A, a full-field compositional model was used to history match this miscible pilot.
Pilot B, incorporating the effect of existing pressure gradients and Areal and Vertical Sweep. Fig. 17 show the evolution of the
peripheral-seawater-injection sweep. Similar local grid refinement GOR in the nearby well (PA-5) and the match obtained, which
has been performed vertically and horizontally in the area sur- demonstrates good match of GOR. Another nearby well (PA-4)
rounding Pilot B to reduce the numerical dispersion of composi- was not perforated in Reservoir B and therefore cannot be used to
tion and saturation fronts. Other modifications were similar to assess areal-sweep efficiency. Moreover, the water cut obtained
those for the Pilot A model. from the simulation is in agreement with the observation for
Pressure Match. Pressure in the Pilot B area was greater than Well P-1, as shown in Fig. 16 (bottom left). All these results
the MMP during the production period. It is important to replicate show that the model is able to assess areal-sweep efficiency with
good accuracy.
Fig. 18 shows that the gas breakthrough in the simulation also
2 occurs from the high-permeability streaks that are in the middle
Well PA-5 of the formation, as described in Fig. 15. The evolution of gas
was also captured in the simulated model, which predicts the
1.6 improvement in vertical sweep, but these gas saturations cannot
Observed
be verified because of the qualitative nature of the time-lapse
GOR (Mscf/STB)

Simulated
1.2 CNL and RST logs.
As mentioned previously, the producer well was sidetracked in
2010 and fluid samples were collected in the top and bottom
0.8
zones, with both samples indicating the presence of almost 100%
gas. The simulation model predicts similar behavior, as shown in
0.4 Fig. 19 (left). Dean-Stark analysis that yields 10% ROS after
flooding is also in agreement with the simulated model.
0
The simulation predicts in a good range the areal and vertical
2002 2003 2004 2005 gas movement of the pilot. Because the pilot lies in transition
zone that has low initial oil saturation, most of the oil has already
Fig. 17—GOR match of the nearby well (Well PA-5) with been recovered by peripheral water injection, as seen in Fig. 19
observed data. (left). At this stage the water-cut at the pilot is 80% as shown in

26 February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 16:20 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160046/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160046

 REE181758 DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA Date: 4-February-17 Stage: Page: 27 Total Pages: 11

Sg Sg Sg Sg Sg Sg
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
15
18
21
24
27
TVDSS (ft) (showing last two digits)

30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60 August 2002 November 2002 August 2003 June 2004 July 2005 December 2005
63
66

Fig. 18—Gas saturation from simulation model of Well Obs-1.

Fig. 16 (bottom left). The remaining oil, which is difficult to conditions. Results also indicate that gas injection can be conducted
recover by water injection, is recovered through miscible gas in tertiary mode to improve overall recovery in this field. However,
injection. Fig. 19 (right) shows the comparison of oil recovery by the major challenges that affect recovery, as highlighted by both
water injection, if water remained injected in the pilot area, and pilots, are gravity segregation and reservoir heterogeneity.
the gas injection. It shows that the miscible gas injection in terti- The current field-development scheme has relied on the pe-
ary zone can yield an additional recovery of 16%, as predicted ripheral-water injection and crestal-gas injection for pressure
from simulation after 1.49 PVI of gas. maintenance, as discussed by Pavangat et al. (2015). The future
development plan is to migrate gradually toward sweep-oriented
development, as described by Nakashima et al. (2015). For full-
Discussion field implementation of gas injection, WAG is considered to be a
Two gas-injection pilots with secondary- and tertiary-recovery promising option because it improves both macroscopic sweep as
methods have been successfully executed in an offshore environ- well as microscopic-displacement efficiency in water-swept
ment. Both pilots demonstrate that gas injection helps improve pres- zones. Implementation of a WAG scheme would result in the
sure support and production, whether in miscible or nearly miscible development of a three-phase zone in each injector/producer-

Oil Saturation
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
10

15 100
Recovery Factor (%)

20
80
TVDSS (ft) (showing last two digits)

Water injection
25
Gas injection
30 60

35
40

40

20 36% recovery with waterflood

45
before gas injection started

50
Initial 0
After waterflood 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
55 Dean-Stark
Simulation
60

Fig. 19—Oil- and gas-saturation comparison of observed and simulated data of Well P-1 (left) and recovery comparison (right).

February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 27

ID: jaganm Time: 16:20 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160046/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160046

 REE181758 DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA Date: 4-February-17 Stage: Page: 28 Total Pages: 11

1.0 40
Cumulative Oil Production (million STB) Gas-Usage Factor (Mscf/STB)
35
0.8
Tertiary: Continuous gas injection 30 Tertiary: Continuous gas injection

Tertiary: WAG injection Tertiary: WAG injection

0.6 25

20
0.4
15
10
0.2
5
0.0 0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Years Years

Fig. 20—Comparison of cumulative oil production and gas-usage factor for tertiary continuous and WAG injection.

drainage pattern, with potential effect on relative permeabilities, obtain necessary petrophysical parameters such as gas-trapping
trapped oil and gas saturation, and, consequently, injectivity. and hysteresis.
The Pilot B history-matched simulation model was used to eval-
uate the benefit of WAG implementation instead of tertiary gas Nomenclature
injection in the Pilot B area. A WAG ratio of 1:1 and a 6-month
cycle was used for the screening study. In this model, hysteresis CNL ¼ compensated neutron log tool to calculate porosity
and gas-trapping effects are not considered because laboratory and identify lithology and presence of gas by making
experiments have not yet been performed to evaluate these parame- thermal and epithermal neutron measurements
ters. The operational constraints of Pilot B are used in the model, k ¼ permeability
including a GOR limit of 15 Mscf/STB and a water cut of 95%. RST ¼ reservoir saturation tool to compute the saturation ei-
Fig. 20 shows the performance comparison of tertiary Pilot B ther from carbon/oxygen (C/O) ratio measurement or
and WAG. WAG recovers significant additional oil with the same from sigma measurement
operational constraints compared with tertiary gas injection. So ¼ oil saturation as percent of PV
WAG injection also extends the duration of the producing pilot by Sorm ¼ ROS to miscible flood as percent of PV
3 years compared with tertiary Pilot B, the production of which / ¼ porosity
was discontinued after only 1 year of production, with the same
operational constraints. WAG not only produces extra oil but also
reduces by half the amount of gas required. Compared with terti- Acknowledgments
ary injection, the WAG gas-usage factor, the amount of gas The authors are grateful to the management of the Abu Dhabi Ma-
required to produce 1 unit of oil, is reduced significantly, as rine Operating Company and the industrial shareholders (Abu
shown in Fig. 20 (right). Moreover, WAG injection can be further Dhabi National Oil Company, British Petroleum, Total, and
optimized by reducing gas volume in later cycles, or “tapering” the Japan Oil Development Company) for permission to present
the WAG. this paper.

Conclusions
1. Two gas-injection pilots were conducted in two different reser- References
voirs (Reservoirs A and B) in a Middle Eastern, Lower Creta- Al-Basry, A. H., Al-Hajeri, S. K., Saadawi, H. N. et al. 2011. Lessons
ceous carbonate formation. Improvement in pressure support Learned from the First Miscible CO2-EOR Pilot Project in Heteroge-
and production performance was observed in both the pilots. neous Carbonate Oil Reservoir in Abu Dhabi. Presented at the SPE
2. The vertical-sweep efficiency was affected by reservoir geol- Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain,
ogy, as shown by Pilot B observing early gas breakthrough 25–28 September. SPE-142665-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
through high-permeability streaks. Significant gravity override 142665-MS.
of gas is also observed in Pilot A, which affected the pilot re- Al-Hendi, A., Boyd, D. and Al-Riyami, A. 1998. Design of Action Plan
covery. Therefore, continuous gas injection is not an effective and Monitoring Program; Secondary and Tertiary Gas Injection Pilots
scheme for large-scale application. in a Limestone Reservoir. Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Pe-
3. Flow-assurance issues, including asphaltene deposition in pro- troleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, 11–14 November.
ducer wells upon gas breakthrough, have been encountered in SPE-49538-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/49538-MS.
one of the pilots. This issue needs to be studied before full-field Al-Shamsi, H. A., Al-Katheeri, A. B., Al-Ameri, A. F. et al. 2012. Immis-
implementation. cible WAG Injection Pilots Performance and Lessons Learnt in Car-
4. Operational learnings include increased awareness of the com- bonate Reservoir Onshore Abu Dhabi Oil Field, United Arab
plexities involved with implementing pilots in an offshore Emirates. Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibi-
environment and the necessity of proper planning, including tion and Conference, Abu Dhabi, 11–14 November. SPE-162165-MS.
preparation of a detailed risk-mitigation plan. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/162165-MS.
5. A good history match of both the pilots has been obtained, sug- Alsharhan, A. S. and Nairn, A. E. M. 1997. Sedimentary Basins and Petro-
gesting that near-miscible injection occurred in Pilot A and leum Geology of Middle East. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
miscible injection occurred in Pilot B. Tertiary miscible injec- Bonnin, E., Levallois, B. and Joffroy, G. 2002. Full Field Tertiary Gas
tion of Pilot B recovered an additional 16% stock-tank oil in Injection: A Case History Offshore Abu Dhabi. Presented at the Abu
place compared with waterflooding. Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
6. Gas injection in WAG mode is a possible solution to control 13–16 October. SPE-78362-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/78362-MS.
mobility and improve recovery. Simulations performed on the Bourgeois, M. J., Thibeau, S. and Guo, J. 2011. Modelling Residual Oil
history-matched model by use of a WAG strategy give higher Saturation in Miscible and Immiscible Gas Floods by Use of Alpha
oil recovery with lower GOR, and thus should be studied as a Factors. Presented at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference
future development option. These findings should be confirmed and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 23–26 May. SPE-143379-MS. http://
and optimized through dedicated coreflood experiments to dx.doi.org/10.2118/143379-MS.

28 February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 16:20 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160046/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160046

 REE181758 DOI: 10.2118/181758-PA Date: 4-February-17 Stage: Page: 29 Total Pages: 11

Camy, J. P. and Emanuel, A. S. 1977. Effect of Grid Size in the Composi- the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference,
tional Simulation of CO2 Injection. Presented at the SPE Annual Fall Abu Dhabi, 11–14 November. SPE-49516-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver. 9–12 October. SPE- 10.2118/49516-MS.
6894-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/6894-MS. Patacchini, L., Sebastien, D., Bourgeois, M. et al. 2015. Simulation of Re-
Dabbouk, C., Namba, T. and Mohammed, S. A. 1996. Pilot Gas Injection sidual Oil Saturation in Near-Miscible Gasflooding through Satura-
Design in Two Middle East Carbonate Reservoirs. Presented at the tion-Dependent Tuning of the Equilibrium Constants. SPE Res Eval &
Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Eng 18 (3): 288–302. SPE-171806-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
Dhabi, 13–16 October. SPE-36248-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/ 171806-PA.
36248-MS. Pavangat, V., Patacchini, L., Goyal, P. et al. 2015. Development of a Giant
Figuera, L. A., Al-Hammadi, K. E., Bin Amro, A. A. et al. 2014. Perform- Carbonate Oil Field, Part 1: Fifty Years of Pressure Maintenance His-
ance Review and Field Measurements of an EOR-WAG Project in tory. Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition
Tight Oil Carbonate Reservoir- Abu Dhabi Onshore Field Experience. and Conference, Abu Dhabi, 9–12 November. SPE-177768-MS. http://
Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and dx.doi.org/10.2118/177768-MS.
Conference, Abu Dhabi, 10–13 November. SPE-171871-MS. http:// Roxar. 2012. Reservoir Management Software (RMS) Suite, version 2012.
dx.doi.org/10.2118/171871-MS. Emerson Process Management Group.
Green, D. W. and Willhite, G. P. 1998. Enhanced Oil Recovery, Vol. 6. Schlumberger. 2012. Eclipse 300 software, version 2012. Schlumberger
Richardson, Texas: Textbook Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers. Limited.
Hiraiwa, T. and Suzuki, K. 2007. New Method of Incorporating Immobile Stofferis, M. and Boibien, C. 1995. Monitoring of Two Gas Injection
and Nonvaporizing Residual Oil Saturation into Compositional Reser- Pilots in an Offshore Abu Dhabi Field. Presented at the Middle East
voir Simulation of Gasflooding. SPE Res Eval & Eng 10 (1): 60–65. Oil Show, Bahrain, 11–14 March. SPE-29804-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
SPE-88719-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/88719-PA. 10.2118/29804-MS.
Jerauld, G. R. 1998. A Case Study in Scaleup for Multicontact Miscible Yonebayashi, H., Al-Mutairi, A. M., Al-Habshi, A. M. et al. 2009.
Hydrocarbon Gas Injection. SPE Res Eval & Eng 1 (6): 575–582. Dynamic Asphaltene Behavior for Gas Injection Risk Analysis. Pre-
SPE-53006-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/53006-PA. sented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha,
Konwar, L., Tariq, S., Khan, S. et al. 2011. Lessons Learnt from Nine 7–9 December. IPTC-13266-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-
Years of Immiscible Gas Injection Performance and Sector Modeling 13266-MS.
Study of Two Pilots in a Heterogeneous Carbonate Reservoir. Pre-
sented at the Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference
and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, 9–11 October. SPE-147999-MS. http:// Jitendra Kumar is a reservoir engineer in the Field Develop-
dx.doi.org/10.2118/147999-MS. ment Studies Division, on secondment from Total, at the Abu
Kumar, J., Yammahi, F. S. and Nakashima, T. 2015. Gas Injection EOR Dhabi Marine Operating Company. Previously, he worked in
the Thermal EOR Department at Total’s technical center in
Screening by Laboratory Experiment and Sector Modeling in Carbon-
Pau, France, where he worked on thermal EOR reservoir simu-
ate Reservoir. Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Ex- lation and performed associated coreflood experiments with
hibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, 9–12 November. SPE-177505- hot water, steam, and electrical heating. Kumar holds a
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/177505-MS. bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the Indian Institute
Lawrence, J. J., Teletzke, G. F., Hutfilz, J. M. et al. 2003. Reservoir Simu- of Technology and a master’s degree in reservoir engineering
lation of Gas Injection Processes. Presented at the Middle East Oil from IFP School, France.
Show, Bahrain, 5–8 April. SPE-81459-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/ Pawan Agrawal is a reservoir engineer in the Technology
81459-MS. Deployment Division at the Abu Dhabi Marine Operating
Marzouk, I. 1999. Wettability and Saturation in Abu Dhabi Carbonate Company. He has more than 6 years of industrial experience
Reservoirs. Presented at the Middle East Oil Show and Conference, in different aspects of reservoir engineering, from exploration
Bahrain, 20–23 February. SPE-53379-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/ to development, and has worked on several fields in India,
53379-MS. Venezuela, Canada, and the Middle East. Agrawal holds a
Nakashima, T., Kumar, J. and Draoui, E. 2015. Development of a Giant Car- bachelor’s degree in petroleum engineering from the Indian
bonate Oil Field, Part 2: Migration from Pressure Maintenance Develop- School of Mines and a master’s degree in chemical engineer-
ing from the University of Calgary.
ment to Sweep Oriented IOR Development. Presented at the Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, 9–12 Elyes Draoui is the vice president of the Technology Deploy-
November. SPE-177801-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/177801-MS. ment Division, on secondment from Total, at the Abu Dhabi
Negahban, S., Joshi, N., Jamaluddin, A. K. M. et al. 2003. A Systematic Marine Operating Company. During his 27 years of experience
Approach for Experimental Study of Asphaltene Deposition for an in the oil and gas business, he has held several managerial
and expertise positions in offshore and onshore environments,
Abu Dhabi Reservoir Under WAG Development Plan. Presented at the
focusing on the development of gas/oil, condensate, extra-
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 5–7 Febru- heavy-oil, high-pressure/high-temperature, and deepwater
ary. SPE-80261-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/80261-MS. fields in countries including Nigeria, Brunei, Malaysia, Republic
Nicolle, G., Cartier, G. and Jaber, O. 1998. Tertiary Gas Injection: From of the Congo, and Venezuela. Draoui holds a PhD degree
Pilot to Full Field – A Case History Offshore Abu Dhabi. Presented at from the Mining School of Paris.

February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 29

View publication stats

ID: jaganm Time: 16:20 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160046/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160046