Pressure Maintenance Operations in the Sharon Ridge

Canyon Unit, Scurry County, Tex.

HAROLD A. LACIK R. E. SM/TH-OPERATOR
JOSEPH L. BLACK, JR. SNYDER, TEX.
MEMBERS A/ME

Abstract work and study directed toward a conservation program

resulted in the formation of the Sharon Ridge Canyon
The Sharon Ridge Canyon Unit is a pressure main- Unit, with 100 per cent of the operators signing the
tenance project using fresh surface water injected on a agreement. On May 1, 1955, unitized operations com-
peripheral pattern. Canyon Reef limestone of Pennsyl- menced with a peripheral water-injection pressure main-
vanian age, occurring at approximately 6,700 ft, com- tenance program.
prises the producing reservoir. The original producing
mechanism was that of an undersaturated solution-gas
drive. Rapid pressure decline and the threat of climbing Geologic and Reservoir Data
gas-oil ratios pointed toward the need for pressure main- Along the eastern shelf of the Permian Basin in West
tenance. Texas lies a massive, horseshoe-shaped reef of Pennsyl-
Performance to date under the influence of water in-
jection has been very encouraging. During six years of
water injection, the volumetric average reservoir pressure
has increased 338 psi, from 1,583 to 1,921 psi. The pro-
ducing gas-oil ratio has been reduced from about 1,300
to about 900 cu ftl bbl. Before water injection, it was
necessary to withdraw approximately 2.3 reservoir bbl in
order to place 1 bbl of oil in the stock tank. Now, 1 bbl
of stock-tank oil requires a withdrawal of only 1.8 reser-
voir bbl. Peripheral portions of the reservoir which have
experienced encroachment by the injected water have per-
formed better than predicted. Based on this history and
recovery predictions, ultimate recovery as a result of this
water injection will be at least 50 per cent of the original
oil in place. This is twice the predicted recovery without
pressure maintenance.

Introduction
With the completion of Humble Oil & Refining Co. 's
R. E. Bishop 1 (now known as Tract 35, Well 1) in <\0"
March, 1949, the Sharon Ridge Canyon field was dis-

covered. This field is located approximately 20 miles &0- .'

southwest of Snyder, Tex., and its Pennsylvanian reef res-

t:I "'~ . ,6. _ ; =_7 .. :,= --
ervoir was divided from the Kelly Snyder and Diamond I
"

"M" fields by means of arbitrary lines. In Nov., 1951, r---- I

I I
the Sharon Ridge Canyon field was combined with the
Diamond "M" field. i i
'i'
Less than two years after the discovery well had ~----~---+~"'*~--~~--~--~
been completed and with the field only 75 per cent de-
veloped, the operators met and formed the "Sharon Ridge .... I!
Canyon Engineering Committee". A great amount of

Manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office March Fig. l--Location map of Sharon Ridge Canyon Unit, Scurry
27, 1961. Paper presented at Third Biennial SPE Permian Basin Oil
Recovery Conference, May 5-6, 1961, in Midland, Tex. and Borden counties, Tex.
SPE 37
lUI.Y, 1961 645'
 vanian age. Canyon Reef is the name given one of several
oil-producing portions of this mass. Like some other car-
bonate reservoirs, its physical characteristics are far from
uniform. Porosity and permeability vary widely, both
laterally and vertically. Several local highs are present
and reservoir thickness, while sometimes uniform from
one well to the next, does not necessarily follow any nor-
mal stratigraphic pattern. The water table is tilted slightly
from southeast to northwest. In the Sharon Ridge Canyon
Unit, the oil-water contact varies in this manner from
about 4,420- to 4,475-ft subsea.
Even though the reservoir seems to display erratic
characteristics when local areas are compared, a broader
view reveals several generalizations concerning the field
as a whole. The porosity is lower on the periphery than
in the inner portion. Permeability distribution over the
vertical extent of the producing formation is more uni-
form in the inner portion than on the periphery, and it
seems to grade from one condition to the other. The field
average thickness is approximately 98 ft, with a porosity
of 8.8 per cent and a connate-water saturation of 28 per
cent. The average whole core-analysis permeability was
44 md, while later productivity-factor tests revealed a
calculated average permeability of 78 md. Analysis of
connate water showed an average salinity of 50,000-ppm
NaCl.
Very early in the life of the field, bottom-hole oil sam-
ples were obtained and analyzed. They revealed a reser-
voir fluid considerably under-saturated with gas at orig-
inal conditions, with an average saturation pressure of
1,900 psi and a dissolved gas-oil ratio of 1,153 cu ft/bbl
when flashed at 76F and O-psi separation conditions. The
average stock-tank oil gravity was 44 API, with the spe-
cific gravity of produced gas being 1.09. For a list of the
various reservoir fluid properties at different pressures
based on a separator pressure of 25 psi, refer to Table I.
Primary History
The primary history of the Sharon Ridge Canyon field
is easily recognized as that of a solution-gas-drive type of
producing mechanism. High initial reservoir pressure gave
way to a fairly rapid decline rate which, in turn, began
to contribute toward increasing produced gas-oil ratios.
Thus, reservoir withdrawals necessary for the production
of a stock-tank barrel began to climb. It was calculated
that the productive energy of the reservoir would be ex-
hausted while recovering scarcely one-fourth of the orig-
inal oil in place.
The original bottom-hole pressure in the discovery well
11 days after completion was 3,135 psi at 4,300-ft subsea,
with reservoir temperature determined as 128F. These
conditions resulted from a shut-in time of 50 hours.
The Railroad Commission of Texas scheduled a bot-
tom-hole pressure survey for the entire reef during March,
1950, during which pressure build-up tests were run to
determine the time necessary for the bottom-hole pressure
to become static. It was decided that a time of 48 hours
TAIILE l-SHARON RIDGE CANYON UNIT RESERVOIR flUID PROPERTIES
Viscosity
Res. Oil A~Reservoir
Pressure Vol./S.T.O. Vol. Solution Gas Conditions
JE!!L.. At 25psi Separation (eu fl/bbl) (ep)
3135 1.545 1012
li'OO 1.572 1012
1700 1.536 925
1500 1.500 840
1300 1.463 755
1100 1.-427 670
900 1.390 580
646
W
!5
~ .
0:
0
~ 1'400
32~-
.J
o~
w'"
>'"
~~
~-----------------+~--~----------~~~l
80
Fig. 2-Reservoir performance before and after pressure
maintenance by water injection.
was sufficient to attain a static bottom-hole pressure in
subsequent surveys. Along with this, wells were shut in
and opened in bands to minimize interference. In later
surveys, as the pressure declined, shut-in time was in-
creased to 72 hours. This practice is still followed.
During the time from discovery to the initiation of pres-
sure maintenance, the oil-recovery rate was approximately
6 million bbl/year, with a cumulative recovery of some
33.5 million bbl being attained. During this amount of oil
recovery, the bottom-hole pressure declined 1,552 psi.
representing a 49.5 per cent depletion of the original
reservoir pressure. The average annual gas-oil ratio based
on 25-psi separation increased from 1 McflSTB at dis-
covery to 1.28 McflSTB by the start of pressure main-
tenance operations. Figs. 2 and 3 display these reservoir
data before and after pressure maintenance by water
injection.
Pressure Maintenance Operations
There are 343 wells included in the unitized area. Dur-
ing June, 1955, 22 producing wells along the periphery
were converted to water-injection service, and the first
water was injected. At the present time there are 39
injection wells completing a peripheral injection pattern;
thus, completely separating this unit from other producing
areas in the Diamond "M" (Canyon Lime area) field.
The injection wells were deepened 50 to 100 ft below
the oil-water contact as the desire is to inject both later-
ally into the reef section and below the oil-water contact.
The composite water-input profile made from spinner sur-
veys indicated 48 per cent of the injected water entering
above the oil-water contact and 52 per cent below. The
composite profile indicated approximately 100 per cent
of the gross reef open to the injection well bores taking
water.
The source of water for injection is Lake J. B. Thomas,
located just below the southernmost extremity of the unit.
Treatment of this water consists of coagulation, chlorina-
tion and filtration. Lime is used in pH control, and a
corrosion inhibitor is added to the finished water. Water
quality has been maintained at a high level and corrosion
controlled effectively.
.44
.35 Produced water is gathered and returned to the reser-
.38
.40 voir. The produced water is neither treated nor filtered,
.42 but a closed system is maintained from producing well
.44
.46 to injection well using an oil blanket in the storage tanks.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 Individual well injection volumes range from 180 to
2,000 BID at pressures ranging from 0 to 2,310 psi. The
volumes are established on the basis of allowable dis-
tribution. A study of the injection wells to determine evi-
dence of plugging was made, and it was concluded that
none has taken place.
Cumulative water injected to Jan. 1, 1961, was 71,020,-
642 bbl, which amounts to 58.62 per cent of total reser-
voir withdrawals to that date. Current injection volumes
amount to approximately 120 per cent of reservoir with-
drawals. To date the unit has experienced no premature
water breakthrough.
Reservoir Performance
Shortly after water injection began, the pressure decline
was halted and the average (volumetric weighted) reser-
voir pressure began increasing. The gas-oil ratio continued
to increase but at a reduced rate. Within a year, it began
to decline also.
As the water injection began to regenerate the energy
for production in the reservoir, it became obvious that
some general philosophy should be formulated concerning
how to produce in response to these injection effects. In
the northwest one-third of the field, there had existed an
area of higher gas-oil ratio than the average. To further
promote the benefit of the pressure maintenance effort,
55 wells in this area were shut in. Their allowables were
distributed uniformly throughout the portion of the field
which had experienced regenerated producing ability. The
decision of where to place the allowables, and how much,
w~s. based on the receiving well's bottom-hole pressure,
abIlIty to produce and structural position in such a man-
ner as not to withdraw too heavily from anyone well
while at the same time taking advantage of its increased
producing ability. A flexible transfer rule, granted the
unit by the Railroad Commission, provides an efficient
and instant means of adjusting reservoir withdrawals into
such patterns as may be best in dealing with changing
effects brought on by injection-water advance.
Studies were conducted to determine a general produc-
ing philosophy. The permeability capacity distribution'
basis for analyzing and predicting behavior of a water
advance was used. The results of some model studies'
were also considered. The decision from these was that
wells should be produced to a high water-oil ratio before
being closed-in and that uniform distribution of with-
drawals over the producing area were desirable insofar
as was possible considering varying individual abilities.
Injection into sectors of the periphery is kept in propor-
tion to withdrawals from the area they serve in an attempt
to create a balanced water advance. Producing to a high
water-oil ratio in individual wells means continual water
production of a certain amount. To date the unit has
averaged producing at a water cut of approximately 20
per cent, and this level probably will continue for some
time as edge wells are shut in and others increase in
water production with the water advance. The unit could
easily produce its current allowable completely water-free
if desired, but it is believed that producing to economic-
ally feasible high water-oil ratios will insure a more ef-
ficient displacement of recoverable oil from the reservoir.
The total allowable prior to unitization and water injec-
tion was 33,240 bbllscheduled day. Present allowable is
44,320 bbllscheduled day. The ability to produce has
increased with time and has become more efficient since
lReferences given at end of paper.
JULY. 1961
3.001---~------
"----r- --1 -
RECOVER~
~ UNDER WA R INJECTION I
:
~.50r-------~---------+----~---~---~-
I II
~
i
0:
..
o
%
i
0:
2.0 ot--------r------+--,---!----+-------\--+---------
~
'"f:l
1.5010::------;::-------:~----=-=------:Io------6IL!0-
0:
20 ~O 40 50
CUMULATIVE STO RECOVERY MM BBLS
Fig. 3--Withdrawals vs recovery before and after pressure
maintenance by water injection.
production is now accomplished with no free-gas pro-
duction.
It now seems appropriate to discuss the results of this
pressure maintenance program in terms of additional oil
recovery. Cumulative oil recovery to Jan. 1, 1961, was
62,849,865 STB. By solution-gas-drive calculations it was
determined that without pressure maintenance recovery
to Jan. 1, 1961, would have been approximately 51.9 mil-
lion STB. Thus, nearly 10.95 million bbl of additional
recovery has already been realized by the effects of water
injection. Actual recovery to Jan. 1, 1961, from the peri-
pheral wells which had reached high water-oil ratios was
calculated to be approximately one-half by solution-gas
drive and one-half by the water-injection program. No
wells have been abandoned to date.
Early in the injection life, the permeability distribu-
tion and linear-flow type of waterflood prediction was
used to forecast the ultimate behavior of the peripheral
area and the unit as a whole. As mentioned earlier, the
permeability distribution over the vertical extent of forma-
tion in the peripheral area is considerably poorer than
unit average conditions. The predicted ultimate recovery
by primary and secondary means from wells in the peri-
pheral area was calculated to be 25.2 per cent of the oil
originally in place. Actual recovery to date from such
peripheral areas has been 27.6 per cent of the original oil
in place. Hence, even in the poorer peripheral areas, per-
formance to date under water flood is better than antici-
pated or calculated. A similar prediction as applied to
the ultimate unit behavior resulted in a calculated pre-
diction that 46.4 per cent of the original oil in place
would be recovered from the entire unit. If actual be-
havior compared to that predicted for the entire unit
remains at the level experienced to date, ultimate recovery
of the Sharon Ridge Canyon Unit under the influence of
water injection will be at least 50 per cent of the original
oil in place.
The following summary is offered as a testimony to the
quick return of the investment required to install the
pressure maintenance program.
Cumulative Oil Recovered to
Jan. 1, 1961 . 47.8 bbllgross acre-ft
Calculated Recovery without
Pressure Maintenance,
Jan. 1, 1961 . 39.5 bbJ/gross acre-ft
647
 Amount of Recovery Attrib-
uted to Unitization and
Pressure Maintenance 8.3 bbll gross acre-ft
Jnvestment Cost 0.5 bbll gross acre-ft
The original investment for pressure maintenance has
been returned approximately 16 times. Behavior since
unitization lends confidence to the future of this project.
Individual WeD Behavior
It is interesting to note that, with the excellent over-
all reservoir performance of the unit, there has been no
adverse performance experienced with individual wells.
To the contrary, some wells have responded in such a
favorable manner as to be worthy of mention. Three
examples are offered.
Well A located in the northeast sector of the unit has
2 ft of reef open to the wellbore. At the time of unitiza-
tion, this well was carried on the proration schedule with
zero allowable and had produced a cumulative of 10,516
bbl of oil since completion in July, 1951. Well A is offset
by injection, and less than two years after injection com-
menced the well was returned to producing status-flow-
ing. The well is still on flowing status, producing an
allowable of 100 BOPD and with a capability of produc-
ing two or three times this allowable. Location of this
well prohibits increasing the allowable. Cumulative pro-
duction of oil to Jan. 1, 1961, amounted to 57,865 bbl.
The most recent bottom-hole pressure was measured as
4,035 psi, and the water cut is 75 per cent.
Well B located in the south sector was completed in
April, 1950. This well is an open-hole completion and
bottomed 33 ft above the oil-water contact. At the time
of unitization, Well B was pumping an allowable of 90
BOPD with a 60 per cent water cut. In Jan., 1956, the
well was closed in and returned to producing status in
July, 1956. During Feb., 1957, the well was again closed
in; subsequent testing indicated 100 per cent water pro-
duction. Cumulative production of oil at this time was
120,456 bbl. In May, 1959, Well B was again restored
to production-however, on flowing status. This well,
offset by injection, is currently flowing its 100-BOPD
allowable, and water cut is 40 per cent. Cumulative oil
production as of Jan. 1, 1961, was 150,157 bbl.
Well C, located in the inner portion of the field and
several locations from injection, was completed near the
oil-water contact. Water production was experienced prior
to unitization and continued after unitization to a cut of
45 per cent. As the reservoir pressure increased in this
portion of the field, Well C increased in ability to produce
oil and the water cut began decreasing even though its
daily oil allowable was more than doubled. The well is
648
currently producing a 250-BOPD allowable with a 10 per
cent water cut.
Conclusions
Experience in the Sharon Ridge Canyon Unit has dem-
onstrated that carbonate reservoirs, heterogeneous in na-
ture, will respond efficiently and economically to a pres-
sure maintenance type of recovery program.
Almost six years of performance supports the conclu-
sions of the representatives of the companies who con-
tributed to the original study from which this highly suc-
cessful conservation program evolved. Certainly without
the splendid cooperation of the many operators, owners
and The Railroad Commission of Texas, this would not
have been possible.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank R. E. Smith, unit
operator, and all of the working-interest owners for per-
mission to publish this paper.
References
1. Stiles, W. E.: "Use of Permeability Distribution in Waterflood
Calculations", Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 9.
2. Ferrell, Howard, Irby, T. L., Pruitt, G. T. and Crawford, Paul
B.: "Wben Should a Producer Be Converted to a Water Injec
tion Well?", TPRC Report No. AM 586 (April 25, 1958).
This paper was published under the title, "Model Studies for
Production-Injection Well Conversion During LineDrive Water
Floods", in Trans., AI ME (1960) 219, 94. ***
HAROLD A. LACIK, (left) has been manager of the
Sharon Ridge Canyon Unit since Jan., 1959, when R. E.
Smith became the unit operator. A petroleum engineering
graduate of The U. of Oklahoma, he joined Warren
Petroleum Corp. in 1952. At the beginning of unitized
operations in May, 1955, he was transferred to the Sharon
Ridge Canyon Unit as unit engineer and assistant unit
superintendent. JOSEPH L. BLACK, JR. (right), unit engi-
neer, joined the Sharon Ridge Canyon Unit in 1956 after
working six years with the Ohio Oil Co. as a waterflood
engineer. He received a BS degree in petroleum engineer-
ing from the U. of Pittsburgh in 1950.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY