See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/266663533

Developing the Obaiyed Tight Gas/Condensate Field, Egypt – A Case Study

Article · June 2005

DOI: 10.2118/94106-MS

CITATIONS READS

0 941

7 authors, including:

Eilard Hoogerduijn Strating Sameh Amin

Royal HaskoningDHV October University for Modern Sciences and Arts
41 PUBLICATIONS 1,703 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eilard Hoogerduijn Strating on 01 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 94106

Developing the Obaiyed Tight Gas/Condensate Field, Egypt – A case

study
Eilard H. Hoogerduijn Strating, SPE - Shell International Exploration and Production; Sameh Amin, Rady Abdel Samiee,
Mahmoud Abu Shanab, Mahmoud Ebied, Alaa Abdel Samaie , Nasser Mohamed Ali - Badr Petroleum Company.

© 2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

Introduction
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 14th Europec Biennial Conference held in Madrid, Many projects within the petroleum industry are characterized by
Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
their capital intensity, long duration and significant risk profile. It
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
is therefore essential at any stage in a project life to ensure that
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to one is executing the right project right, and that all potential risks
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of
the SPE, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of are adequately identified and mitigation plans are put in place. To
this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
this end Shell E&P has introduced a rigorous internal review
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous process that tracks a project throughout its life cycle.
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box
833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., This paper describes the results of a Post Investment Review
fax 01-972-952-9435. conducted for the Obaiyed Field Development in the Egyptian
Western Desert. The aim is to present the Obaiyed Field
Abstract Development case, lessons learnt, remedial action taken and
The Obaiyed tight Gas-Condensate field was discovered in 1992 future plans. The focus herein will be on the subsurface aspects of
and following 4 appraisal wells and 3 additional exploration wells the review.
the first integrated field development plan was issued in 1996.
This formed the basis for an agreement to deliver 300 MMscf/d. Field history
The field was brought on stream in 1999 reaching full capacity in The Obaiyed Gas condensate field, discovered in 1992 by the
2001. However, reservoir pressures dropped much faster than Obaiyed 2-2 exploration well, is located in the Egyptian Western
expected (30% rather than expected 10% annual production Desert, some 500 km west of Cairo (Fig.1). The discovery well
decline). In addition condensate production only reached 60% of tested 13.7 MM scf/d and 1470 bcd from 71 m tight (Φ 9.1%, Shc
initial expectation levels. 78%) Middle Jurassic Lower Safa sandstone at about 4000 m
A complete subsurface review in 2000-1 showed 5 key areas of depth. The well represented the first commercial discovery from
concern that requiring specific attention in the FDP update: [1] the deep Jurassic sands in the Western Desert.
more severe reservoir compartmentalisation, [2] poorer reservoir Following the discovery well, 3D seismic was acquired
quality in NW part of the field, [3] lower CGR’s, [4] Temperature (interpretation available early 1995), 4 appraisal wells were
constraints on flow lines, [5] Multiple fluid contacts. drilled (OBA 2-3 [1993], OBA 4-1 [1994], JB 17-3 [1995], JB
Consequently expected production levels and recovery factors 16-3 [1996]) and 3 additional exploration wells were drilled, two
had to be adjusted downward. A root cause underlying most of of which (JB-17-2, JB 18-1) provided key field delimiting
these issues (points [1], [3], [4], and in part [5]) can be traced information.
back to the design and duration of the early well tests. The results of these wells revealed a significant variation in
Three years after the integrated review the reservoir/well both net reservoir thickness (0 to 200m) and quality (porosities
behavior is very much in line with the 2001 model, indicating the vary between 7 and 13%, with the bulk in the 9-11% range.
quality work done at the time. Permeability’s range between 0.1 and 600 mD). It was concluded
Based on the above solid models, the future development of the that the reservoir is a combined structural/stratigraphic trap, with
field has been optimized. It comprises the following key reservoir thinning towards the South and West below an erosional
activities: unconformity. The variation in reservoir quality was reflected by
• Improved field & reservoir management the fact that the OBA 2-3 well found only very tight, non-
• Full field booster-compression productive sands, whilst the other 3 appraisal wells flowed on
• Production acceleration tests about 20 to 25 MM scf/d. The duration of the tests was
• Under Balanced Drilling limited, in part because of flaring considerations. A frac
The aim of the paper is to present the Obaiyed Field Development stimulation on OBA 2-2C showed an encouraging 2.1
case, lessons learnt, remedial action taken and future plans. productivity improvement (Table 1).

The Obaiyed field was characterized by sour (10-20 ppm H2S,

2 E. Hoogerduijn Strating, S. Amin, R. Abdel Samiee, M. Abu Shanab, M. Ebied, A. Abdel Samaie , N. Mohamed Ali SPE 94106

7-8% CO2) wet gas which was initially at dew-point. Available These issues and the key learnings thereof are discussed in some
fluid samples were test separator recombination samples taken detail below.
below dew-point. These samples showed that there were
essentially two, fault-bound reservoir compartments with 1. Rapid pressure decline due to reservoir compartmentali-sation
different PVT/CGR characteristics, an Eastern block with an The wet gas production and flowing tubing head pressure (FTHP)
average CGR of about 120 bbl/MMscf (OBA 2-2B), and a performance of a typical Obaiyed Well is shown in Figure 3. The
Western block with an average CGR of about 150 bbl/MMscf observed rapid production/pressure decline was not expected, and
(OBA 4-1, JB 16-3, JB 17-3). It was recognized however that, indicates that the in-place volumes connected to the well is much
because of the sample procedures used, there was significant smaller than anticipated. This kind of evidence of
uncertainty on the representativeness. compartmentalisation was seen in many wells and was in part
In all 5 wells only Gas down-to’s (GDT) were encountered, supported by CGR variations and geochemical fingerprinting data
indicating that there was a significant uncertainty in the Free (Ref 2).
Water Level (FWL). A possible range of FWL’s (between 3870- Given that the early production tests had not seen any evidence
3950 mss) was inferred from the deepest GDT (observed in the for pressure decline/ compartmentalisation, the 1996 base case
offset JB 18-1 exploration well) and intersection of an static/dynamic model was designed such that the main reservoir
extrapolated RFT gas trends from the Obaiyed wells with a unit was in full pressure communication. Only in the low case
regional water trend. model pressure barriers were included.
The root-cause for this optimistic base case model lies in the
FDP objective/scope design of the early production tests. With cumulative flow periods
The above seismic, well and production test data were used to between 4-6 days, they did not achieve a sufficient radius of
construct a series of static and dynamic models which provided investigation. Reservoir limit tests were not conducted as the
the basis for the 1996 integrated field development plan (FDP). required early production system was not seen as justified.
The FDP was prepared and issued under considerable time
pressure 2. Lower CGR’s
The FDP expectation forecast formed the basis for an The basis for the 1996 FDP was the existence of 2 reservoir
agreement to deliver a Daily Contract Quality (DCQ) of 300 compartments with different PVT characteristics. The available
MMscf/d gas with associated condensates for 7 years. Ultimate samples at the time indicated CGR’s of 150 and 110 bbl/MMscf
gas and condensate recovery was expected to be about 73% RFgas for the West and East part of the field, respectively. In addition,
and 38% RFcond. The field development involved 23 vertical there was a significant uncertainty on the estimates for effective
fracced development wells, a gathering system, a gas plant with and relative permeability, which rendered estimates of liquid
max. capacity of 420 MM scf/d and 60,000 bbl/d condensate, and drop-out ( both near well bore and at greater distances into the
export pipelines. A full field booster-compression was to be reservoir) highly uncertain.
implemented later in 2 stages to maintain DCQ plateau Actual field production only reached 60% of expectation levels.
The production behaviour together with fluid sample data from
Early production experience the development wells indicated 2 key issues:
Drilling of the development wells and facilities design/ • Condensate drop-out was more severe than expected
construction started in 1997 with the objective to meet the August (stabilised initial CGR’s 120 rather than 150
1999 Sales agreement target date of delivering DCQ. bbl/MMscf and 90 rather than 120 bbl/MMscf)
However the early phase of the production start-up was • Some development wells encountered reservoir
hampered by facilities problems, resulting in shutdowns in the compartments with much leaner gas compositions (25-
summer of 2000 (inspection) and autumn of 2002 (replacement). 50 bbl/MMscf, Fig. 4).
As a result DCQ was only reached in May 2001. Although the second issue may have been difficult to predict
At the same time, the producing wells showed a more rapid upfront, the condensate drop-out issue could have been mitigated
pressure decline than expected, making it impossible to maintain through longer production tests. These would have allowed more
DCQ plateau (Fig. 2). Condensate Gas Ratio’s were also lower accurate CGR estimates for the recombination samples and would
and many of wells drilled in the west of the field encountered also have reduced the uncertainties on the Keff and Krel.
smaller reservoir thicknesses of lower quality resulting in poorer
production performance. 3. Poorer reservoir quality in NW part of the field
The original 3 appraisal wells drilled in the West part of the field
Key Learnings had encountered a significant variation in reservoir quality
Reacting to these problems, a complete subsurface review was (ranging between 150 and 22,500 mD*ft, average of 1,360
conducted in 2000-1 (Ref 1). These studies and follow-up work in mD*ft, Fig. 5). This range of reservoir quality was carried
2002-3, showed 5 key areas requiring specific attention in the forward in the 1996 reservoir models. The follow-up wells
FDP update: however showed consistently poorer reservoir qualities (between
[1] Rapid pressure decline due to reservoir compartmentali-sation 18 and 930 mD*ft, average 109 mD*ft, Fig. 5), and all of the
[2] lower CGR’s. wells below 60mDft (D2, D4, D7, D8) did not produce at all. The
[3] poorer reservoir quality in NW part of the field D15 well penetrated the reservoir below the FWL.
[4] High potential wells were constraint by a flow line Consequently, 5 of the planned 23 producers were suspended as
temperature limitation non-productive wells as opposed to the original estimate of 3.
[5] Multiple contacts rather than single field wide FWL Moreover, the producing wells in the west part of the field
SPE 94106 Developing the Obaiyed Tight Gas/Condensate Field, Egypt – A case study 3

performed less than expected. inferred from saturation-height functions. Based on a Leverett-J
The above showed that, despite the fact that the 3 wells seem to function calibrated against the D13 log data, a re-evaluation of the
have a reasonable areal spread in the West block, they represent a FWL’s in all wells was conducted, and this indicated the
biased sample of the reservoir quality. In the absence of a reliable existence of at least 4 different FWL’s at 3875mss, 3825 mss
and independent reservoir quality indicator (e.g. qualitative 3805 mss and 3780mss with the contacts becoming progressively
seismic techniques) the existence of such a bias would have been shallower to the south (Fig. 7)
difficult to predict. Reducing the contact depth has significantly reduced the In
Place hydrocarbon estimates, in particular in the West part of the
4. Flow line Temperature constraints field, which also suffered from the below expectation reservoir
Temperature measurements conducted during the early well tests qualities.
indicated maximum temperatures of 77°C. Given the actual Revisiting the early pressure data, an interpretation with
reservoir temperature of 148°C, it was expected that these multiple contacts would have been possible. If, at the time, a
temperatures could still rise during production. Therefore, a much stronger notion of substantial field compartmentalisation
system of buried flow-lines was designed and constructed with a would have existed, it is likely such an alternative interpretation
maximum temperature constraint of 100°C. Operating the system would have been considered.
above this temperature would push the flow line close to yielding
conditions, thus risking buckling/failure of these high pressure Current status
lines. Three years after the integrated subsurface review the field
Early on in the field life, however, many high potential wells production is still in decline, but the well and reservoir behavior is
were observed to produce well above 80°C and 5 had to be now very much in line with the predictions of the 2001 reservoir
choked back in order to not exceed the 100°C limit (Fig. 6A). model, indicating the quality of work done at the time (Fig. 8). A
Consequently this represented a significant production constraint. follow-up subsurface review in 2003 only added the multiple
Detailed investigations revealed 3 key issues: contacts and updated the history match.
• During the early well tests the temperatures were The disappointments in the main field were slightly offset by
measured down stream of the choke rather than at the the discovery in 1999-2000 of a field extension to the south of the
well head. Moreover these measurements were only field. Overall, however, the current expectation is that only some
done for a narrow range of flow rates (20-25 MM scf/d) 50% of the gas and 30% of the condensate will be recovered, i.e.
and during a short test period (3.5-4.5 days cumulative well below the expectation levels set out in the 1996 FDP.
flow. Consequently the temperature model to estimate
the change in temperature with time or rate did not cover Future Development
the full operating envelope. With the reliable 3D reservoir models (both static and dynamic)
• Stable well head temperatures (both modeled (Fig. 6B) future development plans are tested and optimized. The planned
and actual (Fig 6C)) show a non-linear relationship with field development focuses on 4 areas which are briefly discussed
the flow rate. The temperature increases to a maximum below.
around 30 MM scf/d and than stabilizes or decreases
again. At these high flow rates the perforations start to Improved field and reservoir management
act as a down-hole choke, thus introducing an additional With most of the wells in decline and many low-potential wells,
cooling effect. there is now an increased focus on detailed well and reservoir
• The actual well head temperature is observed to go management and data quality. This in particular was required to
through a transient phase and only stabilizes after about optimize the production of some of the low potential wells. These
3-4 weeks of continuous production (Fig. 6D). wells are now operated in a controlled intermittent flow regime
which was started in 2003 and has significantly improved the
cumulative production.
In response to the above, all new flow lines were constructed
with a higher flowline temperature tolerance. High potential wells Full Field Booster compression
can now produce fully unconstrained at 50+ MM scf/d. The originally planned full field booster compression project has
5. Multiple contacts rather than single field wide FWL changed in scope following the reduction in well potential. Rather
At the time of issuing the 1996 FDP, non of the wells had actually than designing for a DCQ level of 300 MMscf/d it will now be
penetrated a free Water Level (FWL), but the RFT points seemed build for a more modest throughput of 210 MMscf/d.
to all fall on a single gas line with a 0.145 psi/ft gradient. In the
absence of a clear structural spill-point, the position of the FWL Production acceleration
was inferred on the basis of the deepest Gas Down To (GDT) and With the establishment of more reliable reservoir models it
extrapolation of a regional aquifer gradient from a near-by became possible to be more sophisticated in chasing production
exploration well. Based on these data a range of FWL-s was used acceleration opportunities. In 2003 several locations were tested.
between 3950, 3900 and 3870 mss (Fig. 7). The best location was selected and drilled. This vertical, fracced
Only in 2001 an actual FWL was logged in well D13. Based on well found the reservoir depleted as expected but with slightly
this information the field wide FWL was corrected to 3875mss. better quality. After a frac stimulation it started producing at
Further detailed petrophysical evaluation, however, highlighted 55MMscf/d wet gas and 3000 bcd.
discrepancies between the measured saturation profiles and those
4 E. Hoogerduijn Strating, S. Amin, R. Abdel Samiee, M. Abu Shanab, M. Ebied, A. Abdel Samaie , N. Mohamed Ali SPE 94106

Underbalanced drilling JB 17-2

Despite several attempts to produce the tight reservoir in the West
part of the field with vertical and conventional horizontal wells no
commercial production could be established. A feasibility study
identified Under Balanced Drilling as the best established
technology to unlock these reserves. A trial is planned on 2 wells
to test the viability of UBD in the field. If successful, a 6 well
follow-up campaign is planned in a well constraint part of the JB 16-3
field with potential further activities targeting the edges of the JB 17-3
field. OBA 2-2
JB 18-1

Conclusion OBA 4-1

OBA 2-3
Ever since the declaration of commerciality, the Obaiyed field
has gone through a rather turbulent history which was mainly
characterized by disappointments relative to early expectations.
Those expectations are now adjusted and the current reservoir
models have proven to be very accurate and provide a solid basis
for future development activity planning.
The Obaiyed Post Investment Review has yielded many
valuable lessons focusing on the root causes underlying those
original expectations and what could have been done better. 2.5 km
The main cause underlying the early surprises can be traced
Obaiyed
back to the early well testing. A more appropriate well test design
would have helped to gain upfront a much better definition of
subsurface uncertainties and of well/reservoir dynamic behaviour.

Acknowledgements Fig. 1 Obaiyed field structure map, with early exploration

The authors wish to thank Badr Petroleum Company and appraisal wells indicated in black/green respectively
shareholders for permission to publish these results.
350

1st Plant SD 2nd Plant SD DCQ: 300 MMscf/d

300

References
Sales Gas (MM scf/d)

250

1 Bouman, M., Koopman, A., Ibrahim, N.S., “The Obaiyed Gas

Recovery Project – A fully Integrated study”. SPE 68182,
200

Middle east Oil Show, March 17-20, 2001, Bahrain. 150

100

2 Mohamed, S.M., “Obaiyed Field Fluid Geochemical Analysis”. 50

SPE 87289, Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition 0

and Conference, October 15-18, 2000, Abu Dhabi.

0

4
0

4
9

4
-0

-0

-0

-0
-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0
-0

-0
-9

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0
v

ov
b

b
g

g
ay

ay

ay

ay

ay
No

No

No

No
Fe

Fe

Fe

Fe

Fe
Au

Au

Au

Au

Au
N
M

30000 240
1st Plant SD 2nd Plant SD Condensate
CGR
25000 200
Well Test duration Cum Flow Max Rate Radius of Inv Boundary P depletion
Condensate (bbl/d)

(days) period (days) (MM scf/d) observed

20000 160
CGR (bbl/MMscf)

2-2B (pre-frac) 10 3.5 13.7 140-240 No No

2-2B (post-frac) 15 6 29.5 150-250 No No 15000 120

4-1 19 3 24.8 200-400 No No

10000 CGRav FDP 80
JB 16-3 11 3.5 19.3 500-700 1: 150-250m No 89 bbl/MMscf
2: 300-700m
JB 17-3 11 4.5 23.5 250-350 50-150m No 5000 40

0 0

Table 1. Early production test results

Ja 9

M 0

M 0

Se 0

No 0

Ja 0

M 1

M 1

Se 1

Ja 1

M 2

M 2

Se 2

N 2

Ja 2

M 3

M 03

Se 3

N 3

Ja 3

M 4

M 4

4
04
9

-0

-0

-0

0
-0

0
-0

-0

-0

-0

0
-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

0
-0

-0

-0

-0

-0
v-

l-

v-

l-

v-

l-

l-

l-
p

p
ov

p
ov
ay

ay

ay

ay

ay
n
ar

n
ar

ar

n
ar

n
ar
Ju

Ju

Ju

Ju

Ju
No

No

Fig. 2. Actual vs expected Obaiyed Sales Gas and

Condensate/CGR production
SPE 94106 Developing the Obaiyed Tight Gas/Condensate Field, Egypt – A case study 5

OB A 2-2C

40 240 A 60 300
B
W e t G a s Ra te
113 deg C
50 250
35 Wet Gas Rate 210 FTH P
C h o ke

W e t G a s r a te ( M M
FL T

F T H P (b a r) , C h o
40 200
FTHP 100 deg C
Wet Gas Rate (MMscf/d)

30 180
30 150

25 150

FTPH (bar)
20 100

20 120 10 50

15 90 0
A u g -9 9 A u g -0 0 A u g -0 1 A ug -02 A u g -0 3 A u g -0 4
0
A u g -0 5

10 60 OBA D 21A FWHT vs Flow Rate OBA D 21A Production Parameter

C 210

208
D 65.00 105.0

63.00 104.0
5 30 206
FLT, C
61.00 103.0
204

202 59.00 102.0

0 0 200

Gas Rate, Mmscf/d

57.00 101.0
Aug-99 Aug-00 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-03 Aug-04 198

temp, C
FWHT, F
196 55.00 100.0

194
53.00 99.0

Fig. 3. Production/Pressure behaviors of a typical Obaiyed well 192

190
51.00 98.0

.
188 Gas Rate, Mmscf/d
49.00 97.0

186
47.00 96.0
184

182 45.00 95.0

4 4 4 4 04 t-04 t-04 -04 -04 -04 -04 -04 -04 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 r-05 r-05 r-05 r-05
-0 p-0 p-0 p-0
180 ug e e e ct- c c ov ov ov ec ec ec an an an eb eb eb a a a p
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 -A 0-S 0-S 0-S 0-O 0-O 0-O 9-N 9-N 9-N 9-D 9-D 9-D 8-J 8-J 8-J 7-F 7-F 7-F 9-M 9-M 9-M 8-A
31 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Gas Rate, Mmscf/d

Fig. 6. [A] Production profile of a temperature constraint high

potential well, [B] Modelled Tubing head temperature vs. flow
rate profile, [C] Actual well test tubing head temperature vs. flow
CGR=90 rate profile, [D] Transient temperature profile of unconstraint
CGR=120 high potential well.

Formation Pressure (psia)

CGR=50 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950 6000 6050
3750

Expectation
0.144 psi/ft
3775

Actual
CGR=25 3800
3805

0.516 psi/ft
Depth (m tvdss)

3825
3825
3850
?? 0.145 psi/ft 3870
3875 Jb 17-3
jb 16-3 3875
?? 3900
3900 oba 4-1a
jb 18-1 s1
3925
Shams 1-X-A
3950
Fig. 4. Fluid composition (CGR) compartments in the Obaiyed 3950

field. Fig. 7. Original RFT data with interpreted contact in the range
3950-3870mss. Multiple contacts are now interpreted at 3875
100000 mss (e.g. JB 17-3, D13), 3825mss (e.g. OBA 4-1), 3805 mss (e.g.
JB 16-3) and 3780 mss (not shown)
10000
4000
D 13 D 18
1360 mD ft 3800
Modeled Reservoir Pressure (psi)

1000 D 14H
3600
K*H (mD f

D 21
3400 Actual < Modeled

100
109 mD ft 3200
S-A 4H
3000 D 6H

2800
10 2600
s i JB 16-3
2400 00p D1
+2
2200 a li ty Actual > Modeled
1 equ 0ps
i
JB 16- JB 17- OB 4- D-1 D-2 D-4 D-7 D-8 D-14 D-16 2000 - 20
3 3 1A 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000
Actual Reservoir Pressure (psi)

Fig. 5. Reservoir quality (expressed as permeability*height) Fig. 8. Actual vs. modeled static bottom hole pressures fall within
distribution +- 200 psi.

View publication stats