An Approach To Predict Tarmat

Breakdown in Minagish Reservoir

in Kuwait
Mohammed El-Sayed Osman, * SPE, Kuwait Oil Co. (KSC)
Summary
The Minagish oolite reservoir, Minagish field, Kuwait,
is characterized by the presence of tarmat at the oil/water
contact (OWC), so a waterflooding project was planned
for the reservoir. This paper discusses the possibility of
tarmat breakdown by injection of water below it. The
differential pressure at the tarmat resulted mainly from
water injection, and this differential pressure, a result of
oil production, was negligible. This paper presents a tech-
nique to predict tarmat breakdown time, response time
at the nearest producer or observation well, and the time
when water injection should be switched from below the
tarmat to above it. Also, this technique can be used to
predict the differential pressure at tarmat anywhere in the
reservoir.
Introduction
Asphaltic deposits and tarmats have been recognized for
many years. 1-3 Tarmats normally occur near the base of
oil accumulation or near the surface as oil seeps.4 Several
recent geochemical studies 5 indicate that tarmats formed
as a result of one or more of the following mechanisms:
(1) gravitational segregation that caused the hydrocarbon
fractions to stratify with the lighter petroleum at the top
of the reservoir and the heavier at the base: (2) natural
deasphalting where natural, buoyant gases from the source
rock entered the pool and rose through the hydrocarbon
column, lowering the solubility of the asphaltic fraction,
which would consequently precipitate and fall to the base
of the reservoir; and (3) water washing, the movement
of undersaturated water that removed a portion of light
hydrocarbons, leaving asphaltic fractions at the base of
oil accumulation. The moving water might have carried
bacteria that selectively metabolized the lighter fractions
of crude oil. This might have caused a tarmat to form.
One oil reservoir with tarmat is the Minagish oolite
reservoir. It is located in the west central portion of
Kuwait, as shown in Fig. 1. The presence of tarmat was
indicated by samples, cores, and logs that were obtained
from several wells drilled in the reservoir. The mobility
of the tar was almost zero. It created a zone that isolated
the reservoir from its aquifer. The aquifer was a good
size. The reservoir, however, resembled a depleted-drive
type. Thus, a gas-injection project was begun in 1967 to
maintain reservoir pressure. Since 1971, the reservoir
pressure has remained about 4,200 psig [29 MPa] without
any decline.
'Now at the U. of United Arab Emirates.
Copyright 1985 Society of Petroleum Engineers
NOVEMBER 1985
Pressure surveys of different wells indicated pressure
support at different locations in the reservoir. Moreover,
we interpreted the rapid pressure decline (450 psi [3.1
MPa]) at initial production followed by a steady pressure
buildup after field shut-in as a result of breakdown in the
tarmat. Both conventional and simulation studies were per-
formed on the reservoir. It was impossible to explain the
reservoir's behavior without considering tarmat break-
down in certain locations in the reservoir.
A plan to waterflood the reservoir was enacted. The
main objectives of injecting water below the tarmat were
to recover some of the heavy oil (tarmat) and to increase
the communication between the aquifer and the reservoir,
and, consequently, to use its energy in producing the
reservoir.
This paper discusses tarmat breakdown after water is
injected and the duration of that injection.
MOdel Description
For the purpose of this study, the Minagish oolite reser-
voir was divided into five layers on the basis of permea-
bility. Tarmat was present at the OWe. It acted as a
complete barrier between the aquifer and the reservoir.
Its thickness varied from 30 to 115 ft [9.14 to 35.1 m].
We planned to waterflood the reservoir in a peripheral
flood pattern. To predict the full-scale flooding perform-
ance, two waterflooding pilots were chosen-one in the
north and the other in the south. The northern pilot injec-
tor was located in the reservoir where the tarmat was rela-
tively thick, and the southern one was located where the
tarmat was relatively thin. The results of the two pilots
would indicate whether to inject water above and/or be-
low the tarmat throughout the rest of the reservoir. Fur-
thermore, the decision had to be economically feasible.
Data from the northern Pilot Injector MN-26 were used
in this study. Fig. 2 presents a structural cross section
of the MN-26 injector and the tarmat. The average rock
properties are indicated on the figure. Clearly, Layer 3
is the thickest and most permeable layer. Data from
Producer MN-4 (shown in Table 1) were used to study.
the effect of oil production on the differential pressure
at the tarmat.
The following assumptions were used in this study.
1. The reservoir and its aquifer behave as an infinite-
acting reservoir. This is necessary to validate the solu-
tion of the diffusivity equation presented later.
2. The tarmat is a complete barrier between the reser-
voir and its aquifer until it breaks down. Also, differen-
tial pressure across the tarmat at the start of water injection
2071
2072
TABLE 1-AVERAGE PROPERTIES OF ROCKS
AT MN4
Layer Thickness Permeability
Number (ft) (md)
1 75 292
2 80 348
3 137 877
4 75 29
5 50 1.5
Ekh = 172.139 md-ft. Et/>h= 87.09 ft.
KUWAIT
Porosity
(fraction)
0.18
0.24
0.22
0.21
0.17
ARABIAN
GULF
Fig. 1-Location map of Minagish field.
9730
9780
rla TARMAT
is neglected. Therefore, conservative predictions are ob-
tained.
3. The pressure buildup in the reservoir at the tannat
resulting from water entering the reservoir after the tar-
mat breakdown is equal to the pressure drop in the reser-
voir at the tarmat resulting from oil production.
The solution of the diffusivity equation is used to cal-
culate the differential pressure at the tarmat resulting from
both water injection and oil production.
The diffusivity equation is written as
7
Considering the tannat as a complete barrier, the super-
position technique in space was applied to Eq. 1 to ob-
tain Eqs. 2 through 5 to calculate differential pressure at
the tannat:
141.2 B-xIL-xq-x
/l.p=2 PD. . ................. (2)
k-xh
PD=-V2Ei( -:r:
D
) . ..................... (3)
O.OOO2637k-x
tD = 2 t. . ...................... (4)
cecblL-Xrw
d
rD=- . ................................ (5)
rw
To study the effect of oil production and water injec-
tion on the differential pressure at the tarmat, initial cal-
culations were made at two different points on the tarmat:
at d=r w from MN-26 and at d=4,OOO ft [1219 m] (about
INJECTOR
MN-26
4.1
9730
Fig. 2-Structural cross section of northern Pilot Injector MN26 (not to scale).
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
half the distance on the tarmat to be covered by each in-
jector). In these calculations, the MN-4 production rate
of 6,000 STEID [954 stock-tank m
3
/d] and the MN-26
injection rate of 30,000 BID [4770 m 3 / d] water were
assumed. To have a valid comparison between the effects
of water injection and oil production on the differential
pressure across the tarmat, it was assumed that water in-
jection into MN-26 and oil production from MN-4 should
start at the same time and continue at constant rates. Oil
production, however, could have been started long be-
fore that time because the effect of such long production
on differential pressure across the tarmat was assumed
to be negligible. An engineer may take this into account
when estimating the differential pressure required to break
the tarmat (L1Pb)' Some average rock and fluid proper-
ties that were used in this paper are listed in Table 2.
Differential pressures at the tarmat resulting from oil pro-
duction from MN-4 and water injection into MN-26 are
presented in Table 3. It shows that the differential pres-
sure at the tarmat resulting from oil production from
MN-4 is negligible compared with that resulting from
water injection into MN-26. The remainder of this paper
will concentrate on the effect of water injection on the
differential pressure at the tarmat.
The calculations were extended to cover wide ranges
of time and injection rates. The results are shown in Fig.
3. The figure presents a family of curves of differential
pressure resulting from water injection vs. injection time
for different values of injection rates. Because the tarmat
thickness (and, consequently, its breakdown differential
pressure) at the injector and the expected injection rate
were known, the duration of the injection required to
break the tarmat could be determined. Thus a decision
whether to inject above or below the tarmat based on the
economical advantages could be made.
Response Time
The response time is defined as the time at which the ef-
fect of water injection on bottomhole pressure of the
nearest producer or observation well is felt. The super-
position technique in both time and space is applied to
Eqs. 1,3, and 4. We assumed that thej", of the injected
water entered the reservoir after tarmat breakdown. The
logical value for j", is 0.5 in absence of data that would
support any other values. Then the equation was manipu-
lated to obtain a set of expressions for response time:
...... (6)
It should be noted that oil properties are used in Eqs. 6
and 7 assuming that, by the time of response, water ad-
vance in the reservoir is negligible.
Time To Inject Above Tarmat
Assuming that the tarmat would break down by time t b ,
additional time would be required to sweep the oil in the
ring between the top surface and a plane passing by the
injector of interest and parallel to the tarmat location with-
NOVEMBER 1985
TABLE 2-AVERAGE ROCK AND FLUID PROPERTIES
Water FVF, bbllSTB
Water viSCOSity at reservoir conditions, cp
Average water saturation in the reservoir
Relative permeability to oil (at Sw =0.137)
Oil viscosity at reservoir conditions, cp
Oil FVF, bbl/STB
Well bore radius, ft
Relative permeability to water at residual
oil saturation
Distance between MN-26 and MN-4, ft
Average reservoir effective compressibility,
psi-'
Average aquifer effective compressibility,
psi-'
1.029
0.48
0.137
1
0.97
1.47
0.2917
1
3,380
1.29x 10-
5
5.6x10-
6
TABLE 3-DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE RESULTING FROM
OIL PRODUCTION AND WATER INJECTION
Differential Pressure Differential Pressure
at d=r w at d = 4,000 ft
Time
t.pp t.pj t.pplt.pj t.pp t.p, t.pplt.pj
(years) (psi) (psi) (%) (psi) (psi) (%)
---
1 28.4 905.6 3.1 20.7 174.4 11.9
2 33.2 922.2 3.6 25.6 201.0 12.7
3 36.1 947.8 3.8 28.4 218.3 13.0
...


f
-
_: .... ".IItDrAYI
~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ .. ~ _ ~ ~ _ .
---.-
Fig. 3-Differential pressure vs. injection time for different
injection rates.
in the area of interest. The time that the oil in the ring
would have been swept is given by
where V 0 is the oil volume to be displaced from the ring,
and t a is the cumulative time at which the injector should
be recompleted in the oil zone to allow for water injec-
tion above the tarmat.
2073
0_
0_
o.oa
i' o.oa
I 0.02<
oS 0.022
!
a 0.020
~ 0.01'
i ::::
~ 0.012
= 0.010
a:
i 0.001
0.001
0._
0.G02
0.0 L-______ ....L. _______ L-______ ..... ______
0.01 0.1 10.0 100.0
Fig. 4-Differential pressure vs. injection time for different distances on the tarmat from the
injector.
~ at Any Distance From the Injector
Eqs. 2 through 5 were used to calculate the differential
pressure at the tarmat resulting from water injection at
any distance, d, from the injector. The results presented
in Fig. 4 show a family of curves of differential pressure
per barrel of injected water vs. injection time for differ-
ent distances from the injector. Fig. 4 could be used to
predict the differential pressure at the tarmat at any dis-
tance from the injector. The main advantage of Fig. 4 is
that it could be used with variable injection rates.
It should be noted that only a single water injector was
considered in this study. For a multi well injection sys-
tem, the superposition technique in space should be im-
plemented to predict a particular injector's behavior.
The use of Fig. 3 for a constant injection rate is straight-
forward. The following example shows how to use the
chart presented in Fig. 4 for variable injection rates.
Let us assume that water is injected into the MN-26 with
the following variable rates: 16,000 BID [2544 m
3
/d)
water for the first 0.5 year, 20,000 BID [3180 m
3
/d]
water for the next 0.5 year, and 25,000 B/D [3975 m
3
/d]
water to the end of the project. Assume that the average
tarmat thickness around the injector is 50 ft [15.24 mI
Field pressure history shows that a differential pressure
of 15 psi/ft [339 kPa/mj of tarmat thickness would be re-
quired to break down tarmat anywhere in the reservoir.
Thus a 750-psi [5. 17-MPa] pressure differential is need-
ed to break the tarmat at this location. A more accurate
figure could be obtained from laboratory experiments on
cores taken from the tarmat zone. The average rock and
fluid properties are given in Table 2. Assuming that i,,
is 0.5 and the pressure-gauge sensitivity ex is 10 psi [69
kPa], calculate (I) tarmat breakdown time, t,,; (2)
response time at MN-4, t r; and (3) differential pressure
on the tarmat at a distance, d, equal to 100 ft [30.5 m]
from the injector MN-26 at time t h.
2074
Fig. 4 is used with superposition in time. A trial-and
-error procedure should be followed. Assume t h and cal-
culate t:.p. If t:.p = t:.p h =750 psi [5.17 MPa], t b assumed
is correct. In this example, at t h = 1.3 years "assumed,"
t:.p=0.0305 x 1,600+0.0299 X4,OOO+0.0286
x5,ooo=750.6= t:.Ph'
Thus t h = 1.3 years.
Eqs. 6 and 7 are solved to calculate response time, t r'
As the reservoir is stratified, k"h and cp/k" in the two
equations were replaced by r.k"h and r.cphlr.k"h, respec-
tively. From Eqs. 6 and 7, t r = 1.192 years.
By using Fig. 4 with superposition in time,
t:.p=0.015 x 1,600+0.0149 X4,ooo+0.137 x 5,000
=377.7 psi [2.6 MPa].
Thus breakable tarmat thickness at d= 100 ft [30.5 m] is
about 25 ft [7.62 mI.
Conclusions
1. The differential pressure at the tarmat results main-
ly from water injection rather than oil production. Thus
tarmat breakage should not interfere with the oil produc-
tion schedule. Figs. 3 and 4 were constructed on the ba-
sis of this conclusion and are expected to give conservative
answers.
2. This paper suggests a technique to predict breakdown
time of the tarmat on water injection (with constant or
variable rates) below the tarmat. Also, response time at
the nearest observation well and time to switch injection
from below the tarmat to above it were also considered.
Thus a decision about whether to start the water injection
in a particular injector above or below the tarmat could
be based on economics.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
3. The differential pressure at the tarmat anywhere in
the reservoir could also be predicted for both constant and
variable injection rates. By knowing the thickness of tar-
mat at a particular point in the reservoir, it is possible
to predict tarmat breakage at that point at any time of water
injection. For a multi well injection system, the superpo-
sition technique in space should be applied for prediction
of the tarmat behavior.
Nomenclature
A r = area of the ring around a particular injector
sq ft [m
2
]
Bx = FVF of liquid A, RB/STB
[res m
3
/stock-tank m
3
]
C e = effective compressibility, psi - 1 [kPa - 1 ]
d = distance from injector or producer to the
tarmat, ft [m]
Ei = exponential integral defined by
-Ei( -x)= r e:
u
du
x
E v = volumetric sweep efficiency
fw = fraction of water injected entering the
reservoir after tarmat breakdown
h = formation thickness, ft [m]
h
t
= average tarmat thickness, ft [m]
kx = effective permeability to liquid A, md
flp = pressure differential at the tarmat, psi [kPa)
flPb = breakdown differential pressure, psi [kPa]
flp i = differential pressure at tarmat resulting
from water injection, psi [kPa)
flPn = normalized differential pressure, psi/(BID)
[kPa/m
3
'd)] water
flp p = differential pressure at tarmat resulting
from oil production, psi [kPa]
P D = dimensionless pressure expressed by Eq. 3
qx = liquid rate (oil production or water
injection), STBID [stock-tank m 3 /d]
r w = wellbore radius, ft [m)
r D = dimensionless radius, d/ r w
S or = residual oil saturation
Swi = average initial water saturation
t = time, hours
t a = time of switching water injection from
below tarmat to above it, years
tb = tarmat breakdown time. years
t r = response time at nearest producer or
observation well, years
t D = dimensionless time expressed by Eq. 4
Vo = oil volume to be displaced from ring ex-
pressed by Eq. 9, res bbl [res m
3
)
Zr = average height of ring, ft [m]
a = pressure-gauge sensitivity
/J- x = viscosity of liquid A, cp [Pa' s)
cJ> = formation porosity
cJ> r = average porosity of ring
NOVEMBER 1985
Subscripts
o = oil
w = water
A = liquid (oil or water)
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to express his appreciation to the
management of the Kuwait Oil Co. and the Ministry of
Oil of Kuwait State, who made it possible to publish this
paper.
APPENDIX
SI Metric Values for Key Equations
f1p= 1.866 x 10
3
BX/J-xqx PD' ............... (1)
kxh
3 BX/J-xqx
flp=2 x 1.866 x 10 PD. . ............ (2)
kxh
3.55XI0-
6
k
x
tD= t ....................... (4)

...... (6)
References
I. Berger, W.P.: Facts about Oil. Oklahoma State U. Technology Ex-
tension, Stillwater, OK (1975).
2. Berger, W.P. and Anderson, K.E.: Modern Petroleum: A Basic
Primer of the Industry, Petroleum Publishing, Tulsa (1978).
3. Price, P.H.: "Evolution of Geologic Thought in Prospecting for
Oil and Natural Gas," Bull., AAPG (1947) 31,673-97.
4. Moore, L.V.: "Significance, Classification of Asphaltic Material
in Petroleum Exploration," Oil and Gas 1. (Oct. 8, 1984) 109-12.
5. Hunt, LM.: Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology, W.H. Free-
man & Co., San Francisco (1979).
6. Gussow, W.C.: "Differential Entrapment of Oil and Gas: A Fun-
damental Principle," Bull., AAPG (1954) 38,816-53.
7. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analvsis. Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol m
3
cp x 1.0* E-03 Pa's
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
Conversion factor is exact. JPT
Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroteum Engineers office Dec. 29,
1982. Paper accepted for publication June 27, 1985. Revised manuscript received May
20.1985. Paper (SPE 11492) first presented at the 1983 SPE Middle East Oil Techni
cal Conference and Exhibition held in Manama March 14-17.
2075