1

Aquifer Water Compatibility Analysis For water

Injection In A Selected Oil Filed , Iraq

STUDENT’S

Atheer Hadi

Muhammed Sadiq

Nour Rahman

Zahraa Aqeel

A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of

Bachelor of Petroleum Engineering Department

Engineering College

University of Misan

Iraq

2020-2021

2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project report is based on my original work

except for citations and quotations which have been duly acknowledged.

Signature: _________________________

Name : _________________________

Date : _________________________

3
 APPROVAL FOR SUBMISSION

I certify that this project report entitle “Aquifer Water Compatibility

Analysis For water Injection In A Selected Oil Filed , Iraq” was
prepared by Atheer Hadi , Muhammed Sadiaq , Nour Rahman and
Zahraa Aqeel , has met the required standard for submission in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Bachelor of Petroleum
Engineering at University of Misan .

Approved by,

Signature: _________________________

Supervisor : _________________________

Date : _________________________

4
This page intentionally left blank

5
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank everyone who had contributed to the successful

completion of this project. I would like to express my gratitude to my
research supervisor, Dr. Haider H. Dahm for his invaluable advice,
guidance and his enormous patience throughout the development of the
research.

In addition, I would also like to express my gratitude to my loving parent

and friends who had helped and given me encouragement......

6
 Aquifer Water Compatibility Analysis For water

Injection In A Selected Oil Filed, Iraq

ABSTRACT

Water injection is one of the secondary drive methods which is used

to increase the recovery factor of the oil in place, maintain high pressure
pressure of Reservoir , and reduce the proportion of oil residual saturation
Sor in the reservoir

Water is one of the cheapest and most available liquids , that reason
make water attractive fluid to be injection in the oil filed . increased of
water injections operations ; The accompanied by the emergence of some
problems in production, such as reducing the oil flow rate and high
injection pressure due to the damage of permeability of the reservoir; It
became necessary to study the compatibility of the reservoir water with the
injected water to avoid production problems. In this research, the properties
of the water present in one of the Iraqi fields were studied and analysed,
and the water saturation was determined, the depths in which it is located,
and the most appropriate place for injection through the use of IP
petrophysics Software .

7
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract———————————————————————7

Table of contents———————————————————-8

Chapter one————————————————————-12

1.1-Introduction————-———————————————13

1.2-Aims and Objectives————————————————15

1.3-Literature Review—————————————————17

Chapter two.(Theory ) ——————————————— 19

2.1-Water saturation—————————————————-20

2.2-Reserve Estimation————————————————23
2.3-Shale volume calculations—————————————-28

2.3.1-Using SP logging————————————————28

2.3.2-Using Gamma Ray logging-————————————30

2.4-Injection well location———————————————33

2.5-Analysis of Oilfield waters—————————————36

2.6-Water System, Compatibility, and Treatment Water Quality

/Handling——————————————————————37

Chapter Three (Data and Methods)——————————41

3.1-Data——————————-————————————42

3.2-Methods—————————————————————43

8
3.2.1-Volume of shale (Vsh)————————————————44

3.2.2-Porosity——————————————————————47

3.2.3-Water and Hydrocarbon Saturation———————————-49

3.2.5-Determination of Archie's Parameters (a,m,n) Using Pickett Plot-53

3.2.6- Bulk Volume Analysis————————————————55

Chapter Four Results & Conclusion—————————-57

4.1-Final results of Well HF12———————————————58

3.2.4-Concept of Cutoff——————————————————59

4.3-Oil water contact———————————————————62

Conclusion———————————————————67

References———————————————————72

9
LOG MNEMONICS
HTEN Head Tension
TENS Cable Tension
SP Spontaneous Potential
GR Gamma Ray
SGR Spectroscopy Gamma Ray
CGR Gamma Ray Contribution from Thorium and Potassium
CALI Caliper
DTCO Delta-T Compressional
TNPH Thermal Neutron Porosity (Ratio Method) in Selected Lithology
PEFZ Standard Resolution Formation Photoelectric Factor
HDRA Density Standoff Correction
RHOZ Standard Resolution Formation Density
RXOZ Invaded Formation Resistivity filtered at 18 inches
RLA3 Apparent Resistivity from Computed Focusing Mode 3
RLA5 Apparent Resistivity from Computed Focusing Mode 5
TPRA Thorium/Potassium Ratio
TURA Thorium/Uranium Ratio
POTA Potassium Concentration
THOR Thorium Concentration
URAN Uranium Concentration
HBHK Borehole Potassium Concentration
CHI1 Detector 1 Chi-Squared
CHI2 Detector 2 Chi-Squared
DTCO Delta-T Compressional
BS Bit Size
RHOZ Standard Resolution Formation Density
TNPH Thermal Neutron Porosity (Ratio Method) in Selected Lithology
SP Spontaneous Potential
SDEVM Memorized Sonde Deviation
HAZIM Memorized Hole Azimuth
AZIM :N/A
BS :N/A
CALS :Secondary Caliper
CGR :SGR-U
DEVI N/A
DRHO N/A
DT :Wave Travel Time
GR :Gamma Ray counts
LLD :Deep Resistivity
LLS :Shallow Resistivity
MRES :Mud Resistivity
MSFL :MSFL Resistivity
MTEM :Mud Temperature
NPHI. :N/A
PEF :N/A
POTA :N/A
RB Relative Gearing
RHOB N/A
SGR :Total Gamma Ray counts
SP :Spontaneous Potential
SPED :Cable Speed
TENS :Tension
THOR :N/A
URAN :N/A

10
11
Chapter one (Introduction )

12
1.1-Introduction

Produced water is water from underground formations which is

brought to surface during the oil and gas production .It is a source of many
pollutants which can have negative effects on the environment. Produced

water is the largest waste stream in oil and gas industry and its
management presents a challenge requiring additional costs (Hagström et
al., 2016) .

The main causes of presence of produced water during the oil production
are (Arnold, Burnett et al., 2004):

• Tubing, casing or packer leak,

• Channel flow behind casing,

• Raise of oil-water contact,

• High permeability layer without crossflow,

• Fractures or fissures between injectors and

producers,

• Fractures or fussers from a water layer,

• Water coning or cusping,

• Poor areal sweep,

• Gravity-segregated layer,

•High permeability layer with cross flow.

One of the must successful way to dispose of water producer is by

reinfection.

Produced water must be treated before injection .

During water injection process in the oilfield, existed many problems,
such as high pressure of water injection wells, low water absorption index,
slow injection outcome, insufficient injection rate, etc, which seriously
affect the development of oilfield.

Injection water compatibility investigation with formation rock and

fluid at in-situ conditions is imperative in determining the optimum
economic treatment facility requirements. Laboratory experiments were
carried out in addition to software simulation to appraise the risk of
inorganic scale deposition in a hitherto undeveloped carbonate reservoir

Within producing field.

Water injection without compatibility can lead to plugging of the

reservoir and subsequent loss of injectivity, which in turn necessitates the
use of higher than expected injection pressures (Ex. hydraulic fracturing
of the reservoir). This will result in additional OPEX, CAPEX and
possible legal fines.

water injection specification must be realistic with respect to capital

and operating costs of the water treatment design, required to achieve
sustained injection, and is unique to each reservoir. The specification
should consider untreated water quality, porosity/permeability
characteristics, fracturing potential, treatment constraints, the injection
philosophy of the operator, life of the project, and the compatibility of the
injection water with reservoir rock and the formation water.

A prerequisite for any successful and cost-effective water injection

or water disposal process, is a thorough understanding of the chemical and
physical composition of the water (or waters) involved, together with a
rigorously defined water injection specification .

14
1.2 Aims and Objectives
Waters used for the secondary recovery of oil by water injection
usually contain a number of inorganic salts and sometimes organic salts
in solution. It is common practice to test the compatibility of the injection
water and water in the formation before starting injection operation. Often
this test is performed by mixing the injection water with the formation
water in a glass container and observing to determine if a precipitate
forms. The precipitate or scale can be analyzed to determine its
composition.

Waters are compatible if they can be mixed without producing

chemical reactions between the dissolved solids in the waters and
precipitating insoluble compounds. The precipitated insoluble compounds
are undesirable because they can reduce the permeability of a porous
petroleum-productive rock formation, plug input wells in water injection
systems, and cause scale formation in water pumps and lines.

Some of the more common ions that frequently occur in oilfield

waters and that cause precipitation in incompatible waters are: Ca+2,SP2 ,
Ba+2, Fe+2,HC03-, and SO4-2 .

Therefore, every petroleum engineer interested in injecting water into

Reservoirs should avoid the following reactions Common reactions :

15
CaCl2 + Na2SO4 2NaC1+ CaSO4

CaCl2 +MgSO4 MgCl2 +CaSO4

Ca(HCO3)2 CO2 + H2O+ CaCO2

CaCl2 + 2NaCl+ CO2 + H2O+

2NaHCO3 CaCO

SrCl2 + NaSO4 2NaCl+ SrSO4

SrCl2 +MgSO4 MgCl2 +SrSO4

BaCl2 +NaSO4 2NaCl+ BaSO4

BaCl2 +MgSO4 MgCl2 +BaSO4

Fe + H2S H2 + FeS

Fe2O3 + 6H2S 6H2O + 2Fe2S3

So the main object of this reach is detect the compound of water oilfield
( to avoid the reaction above ) and detect the volume of oil in place ,
saturation of water , oil water Contact (OWC) , porosity , and shale
volume of specific oilfield in Iraq.

All above consider strong effect about type of water injection, quantity ,
quality and best point to injection well .

16
1.3 Literature Review

In the early days, the water was dumped on the ground where it seeped
below the land surface. Until about 1930, the oilfield waters were disposed
into local drainage, frequently killing fish and even surface vegetation.
After 1930, it became common practice to evaporate the water in earthen
pits or to inject it into the producing sand or another deep aquifer. The
primary concern in such disposal practice is to remove all oil and basic
sediment from the waters before pumping them into injection wells, to
prevent clogging of the pore spaces in the formation receiving the waste
water. Chemical compatibility of waste water and host aquifer water must
also be assured.

Waters produced with petroleum are growing in importance. In years

past, these waters were considered waste and had to be disposed of in
some manner Injection of these waters into the petroleum reservoir rock
serves three purposes: (1)it produces additional petroleum (secondary
recovery ;)(2)it utilizes a potential pollutant; and (3) in some areas it
controls land Subsidence.

The volume of water produced with petroleum in the United States is very
large. In 1970, daily production was about 3.78 trillion liters of water with
about 1.51 trillion liters of oil. In older fields, the production is frequently
95%water and 5%petroleum.

Water injection in petroleum production is expanding rapidly, and in 1970

one-third to one-half of the production in the United States came from
fields into which water was injected. The volume of injected water has
grown each year. In many fields the volume of petroleum produced by
secondary recovery by water flooding is equal to the volume recovered by
primary methods.

17
To inject these waters into reservoir rocks, suspended solids and oil must
be removed from the waters to prevent plugging of the porous formations.
Water injection systems require separators, filters, and, in some areas,
deoxygenating equipment utilizing chemical and physical control
methods to minimize corrosion and plugging in the injection system.

18
Chapter 2 Theory

19
2.1 Water saturation

Water saturation is the amount of pore volume in a rock that is occupied

by formation water. It is represented as a decimal fraction or as a
percentage and has the symbol Sw.

𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐩𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬

water saturation, 𝐒𝐰= 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐤
( 2.1)

Although hydrocarbon saturation is the quantity of interest, water

saturation is usually used because of its direct calculation in equations such
as Archie’s equation, discussed in a later section in this chapter.
Hydrocarbon saturation is usually determined by the difference between
unity and water saturation:
𝑆ℎ=1−𝑆𝑤. (2.2)

Archie’s experiments (Archie, 1942) showed that the resistivity of a

water-filled formation (Ro) could be related to the resistivity of the water
(Rw) filling the formation through a constant called the formation
resistivity factor (F):
𝑅𝑜 = 𝐹 × 𝑅𝑤 (2.3)

Archie’s experiments also revealed that the formation factor (F) could
be related to the porosity of the formation by the following formula:
𝑎
𝐹= (2.4)
𝜙𝑛

where m is the cementation exponent whose value varies with grain

size, grain-size distribution, and the complexity of the paths between pores
(tortuosity), and a is the tortuosity factor. The higher the tortuosity of the
formation, the higher the value of m. The tortuosity factor (a) is commonly
set to 1.0, but is allowed to vary by some paraphysicist

20
Water saturation (Sw) is determined from the waterfilled resistivity (Ro)
and the actual (true) formation resistivity (Rt) by the following
relationship:

1
𝑅𝑜 𝑛
𝑆𝑤 = ( 𝑅 ) (2.5)
𝑡

where n is the saturation exponent, whose value typically varies from

1.8 to 2.5 but is most commonly assumed to be 2 .

By combining equations 2.3 and 2.4, the water-saturation formula can be

rewritten in the following form :

1
𝐹×𝑅𝑤 𝑛
𝑆𝑤 = ( ) (2.6)
𝑅𝑡

This is the formula that is most commonly referred to as the Archie

equation for water saturation (Sw). All present methods of interpretation
involving resistivity curves are derived from this equation. In its most
general form, Archie’s equation becomes:
1
𝑎×𝑅𝑤 𝑛
𝑆𝑤 = (𝑅 ×𝜙𝑚 ) (2.7)
𝑡

Table 2.1 illustrates the range of values for a and In first-pass or

reconnaissance-level interpretations, or where there is no knowledge of the

21
local parameters the following values can be used to achieve an initial
a: Tortousity m: Cementation Comments
factor exponent
1.0 2.0 Carbonates1
0.81 2.0 Consolidated sandstones1
0.62 2.15 Unconsolidated sands (Humble formula)1
1.45 1.54 Average sands (after Carothers, 1968)
1.65 1.33 Shaly sands (after Carothers, 1968)
1.45 1.70 Calcareous sands (after Carothers, 1968)
0.85 2.14 Carbonates (after Carothers, 1968)
2.45 1.08 Pliocene sands, southern California (after Carothers
and Porter, 1970)
1.97 1.29 Miocene sands, Texas–Louisiana Gulf Coast (after
Carothers and
Porter, 1970)
1.0 φ(2.05-φ) Clean granular formations (after Sethi, 1979)

estimate of water saturation :

a = 1.0; m = n = 2.0

22
2.2-Reserve Estimation

The volumetric method is probably the easiest method used by engineers

to estimate reserves. It requires a limited amount of data for the estimation,
this implies that immediately after discovery of the hydrocarbon
accumulations, during initial delineation and development of a field, the
volumetric method is the key to hydrocarbon volume estimation. Reserves
estimation is often high with this method, because it does not consider the
heterogeneity of the reservoir and it includes the undrained compartments
that do not account to flow and are included in making up the bulk rock
volume of the reservoir or accumulation. At this stage, the level of inherent
error can be reduced if the reservoir is accurately described or
characterized.

The volumetric method is a straightforward approach which requires

determination of the areal extent of the reservoir or bulk volume (calculated
as area times pay thickness), the rock pore volume, and the fluid content
within the pore volume to calculate the amount of hydrocarbons-in-place.
The ultimate recovery can thus be estimated by applying an appropriate
recovery factor. Each of the variables used in the volumetric reserves
calculation above has inherent uncertainties, and when combined; cause
significant uncertainties in the reserves estimate (Petrobjects 2003).
Therefore, the following steps consist the volumetric method of reserves
estimation:

Step 1: Determination of hydrocarbon rock bulk volume (hydrocarbon

saturated portion) from area and thickness (isopach map).

23
Step 2: Determination of average porosity either from core analysis or
well logs.

From core analysis

∑∅𝒋 𝑨𝒋 ∑∅𝒋 𝑨𝒋 𝒉
∅= = (𝟐. 𝟖)
∑𝑨𝒋 ∑𝑨𝒋 𝒉𝟏

From density log as

𝝆𝒎𝒂 − 𝝆𝒃
∅𝑫 = (𝟐 . 𝟗)
𝝆𝒎𝒂 − 𝝆𝒇

From sonic log as

Δ𝑡log −Δ𝑡tma 1
∅𝑆 = Δ𝑡 (𝐶 ) (𝟐. 𝟏𝟎)
𝑓𝑙 −Δ𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑎 𝑝

From resistivity log as

𝑎𝑅𝑤 1/𝑚
∅=[ ] (2.11)
𝑅𝑜

Step 3: Determination of water saturation or indirectly, the hydrocarbon

saturation Water

24
𝑆𝑤 =
∑𝑛
𝑖=1 ∅𝑖 ℎ𝑖 𝑠𝑤𝑖
∑𝑛
(2.12)
𝑖=1 ∅𝑖 ℎ𝑖

Oil saturation

∑𝑛𝑖=1 ∅𝑖 ℎ𝑖 𝑠𝑜𝑖
𝑆𝑜 = (2.13)
∑𝑛𝑖=1 ∅𝑖 ℎ𝑖

Gas saturation

∑𝒏𝒊=𝟏 ∅𝒊 𝒉𝒊 𝒔𝒈𝒊
𝑺𝒈 = (𝟐. 𝟏𝟒)
∑𝒏𝒊=𝟏 ∅𝒊 𝒉𝒊

From resistivity log

𝒏 𝒂𝑹𝒘
𝑺𝒘 √ 𝒎 (𝟐. 𝟏𝟓)
∅ 𝑹𝒕

Step 4: Obtain the net-to-gross ration either from core or log, this is
evaluated as the thickness of sand only (net) divided by the entire
thickness of the reservoir (gross). This means the fraction of the reservoir
that consists of porous rock such as sand or carbonate, excluding shale.
Step 5: Obtain the formation volume factor from the PVT laboratory
analysis on the fluid sample from the reservoir.
Step 6: Practically, take a cut-off value which varies with companies to
account for the pore spaces not connected (contributing to flow) in the
reservoir rock or error during the determination of the petrophysical data.

25
Step 7: Volume correction of hydrocarbon at atmospheric pressure and
temperature at stock tank value or surface volume.

Mathematically, the volumetric method is express as:

Stock tank oil initially in place

𝟕𝟕𝟓𝟖𝑨𝒉∅(𝟏−𝑺𝑤 )𝑁 /𝐺
STOIIP = 𝑁 = (2.16)
𝑩𝑜𝑖

Free gas initially in place

𝟒𝟑𝟓𝟔𝟎𝐴𝒉∅(1−𝑆𝑤 )𝑁 /𝐺
𝐹𝐺𝐼𝐼𝑃 = 𝐺 = (2.17)
𝐵𝑔𝑖

ultimate Recover=STOIIP∗RF (2.18)

For a volumetric saturated oil reservoir, the gas cap size is calculated as:
bulk volume of gas (𝐴ℎ)𝑔𝑐 𝐺𝐵𝑔𝑖
𝑚= = = (2.19)
bulk volume of oil (𝐴ℎ)𝑜𝑧 𝑁𝐵𝑜𝑖

26
2.2.2Sources of the Volumetric Input Data

Parameter Source(s) By
Reservoir thickness, h From cores or logs Geophysicists and
Geologists
Area of the reservoir, Mainly from surface Geologists and
A seismic Petrophysicists
Net-to-gross ratio, h From cores or logs Geologists and
Petrophysicists
Porosity, ∅ From cores or logs Petrophysicist
Saturation, 𝑺𝑤 From cores or logs Petrophysicist
Oil & gas formation From PVT laboratory PVT laboratory
volume factor, or correlations technologist
𝑩𝑜𝑖 & 𝑩𝑔𝑖

27
2.3- Shall Volume Calculation

Shale volume is most important factor with compatibility water injection

since shale rock is sensitive to water .

There are generally two popular way to calculate shale volume by well
logging data .

2.3.1- Using SP logging

The spontaneous potential (SP) log was one of the earliest measurements
used in the petroleum industry, and it has continued to play a significant
role in well log interpretation. Most wells today have this type of
log included in their log suites. Primarily, the SP log is used for
determining gross lithology (i.e., reservoir vs. non-reservoir) through its
ability to distinguish permeable zones (such as sandstones) from
impermeable
zones (such as shales). It is also used to correlate zones between wells.

The SP log is usually recorded on the left track of

the log (track 1) and is used to
• detect permeable beds
• detect boundaries of permeable beds
• determine formation-water resistivity (Rw)
• determine the volume of shale in permeable beds

28
 The concept of static spontaneous potential (SSP) is important
because SSP represents the maximum SP that a thick, shale-free, porous,
and permeable formation can have for a given ratio between Rmf and Rw.
SSP is determined by formula or chart and is a necessary element for
determining accurate values of Rw and volume of shale. The measured SP
value is influenced by bed thickness, bed resistivity, borehole diameter,
invasion, shale content, hydrocarbon content, and most important: the ratio
of Rmf to Rw

Shall Volume calculation

The volume of shale in a sand can be used in the evaluation of shaly sand
reservoirs and as a mapping parameter for both sandstone and carbonate
facies analysis . The SP log can be used to calculate the volume of shale in
a permeable zone by the following formula:
𝑃𝑆𝑃
𝑉shale = 1.0 − 𝑆𝑆𝑃 (2.20)

where:

Vshale = volume of shale .

PSP = pseudostatic spontaneous potential (maximum SP of shale

formation).

SSP = static spontaneous potential of a nearby thick clean sand .

𝑃𝑆𝑃−𝑆𝑆𝑃
𝑉shale = ( 2.20 )
𝑆𝑃shale −𝑆𝑆𝑃

where:

Vshale = volume of shale

PSP = pseudostatic spontaneous potential (maximum SP of shaly

formation)

29
SSP = static spontaneous potential of a nearby thick clean sand

SPshale = value of SP in a shale (usually assumed to be zero)

2.3.2- Using Gamma Ray logging

Gamma ray (GR) logs measure the natural radioactivity in formations and
can be used for identifying lithologies and for correlating zones. Shale-free
sandstones and carbonates have low concentrations of radioactive material
and give low gamma ray readings. As shale content increases, the gamma
ray log response increases because of the concentration of radioactive
material in shale. However, clean sandstone (i.e., with low shale content)
might also produce a high gamma ray response if the sandstone contains

potassium feldspars, micas, glauconite, or uranium-rich waters .

Like the SP log, gamma ray logs can be used not only for
correlation, but also for the determination of shale (clay) volumes.
These volumes are essential in calculating water saturations in
shale-bearing formations by some shaly-sand techniques. Unlike
the SP log, the gamma ray response is not affected by formation
water resistivity (Rw), and because the gamma ray
log responds to the radioactive nature of the formation rather than
the electrical nature, it can be used in cased holes and in open
holes containing nonconducting drilling fluids (i.e., oil-based
muds or air).

30
Shale Volume Calculation

Because shale is usually more radioactive than sand or carbonate,

gamma ray logs can be used to calculate volume of shale in porous
reservoirs. The volume of shale expressed as a decimal fraction or
percentage is called Vshale. This value can then be applied to the analysis of
shaly sands .

Calculation of the gamma ray index is the first step

needed to determine the volume of shale from a gamma ray log:
𝐺𝑅log −𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐼𝐺𝑅 = 𝐺𝑅 (2.21)
𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛

where:
IGR = gamma ray index
GRlog = gamma ray reading of formation
GRmin = minimum gamma ray (clean sand or carbonate)
GRmax = maximum gamma ray (shale)

Unlike the SP log, which is used in a single linear relationship between

its response and shale volume, the gamma ray log has several nonlinear
empirical responses as well as a linear response. The nonlinear
responses are based on geographic area or formation age, or if enough other
information is available, chosen to fit local information. Compared to the
linear response, all nonlinear relationships are more optimistic; that is, they
produce a shale volume value lower than that from the linear equation.

For a firstorder estimation of shale volume, the linear response,

where Vshale = IGR, should be used.

31
 The nonlinear responses, in increasing optimism (lower calculated
shale volumes), are:

Larionov (1969) for Tertiary rocks:

𝑉𝑠ℎ = 0.083(23.7𝐼𝐶𝑅
− 1) (2.22)

Steiber (1970):

𝐼𝐺𝑅
𝑉𝑠ℎ = (2.23)
3 − 2 × 𝐼𝐺𝑅

Clavier (1971):

𝑉𝑠ℎ = 1.7 − [3.38

1
− (𝐼𝐺𝑅 − 0.7)2 ]2 (2.24)

Larionov (1969) for older rocks:

𝑉𝑠ℎ = 0.33 × (22−𝐼𝐶𝑖 − 1) (2.25)

32
2.4 Injection Well Location

The relative location of injection and production wells depends on the geo-
logy of the reservoir, its type, and the volume of hydrocarbon-bearing rock
required to be swept in a time limited by economics. It is advantageous,
where possible, to make use of any favorable influence of gravity, for
example in inclined reservoirs, reservoirs with a gas-cap or with an
underlying aquifer.

This leads to two types of injection well location:

(a) Central and peripheral flooding, in which the injectors are grouped
together.

(b) Pattern flooding. in which the injectors are distributed amongst the
production wells.

a. Central and peripheral injection

This type of injection occurs in the following cases: (a) Reservoir with a
gas-cap in which gas injection is taking place. If the reservoir is a fairly
regular anticlinal structure, the injection wells are normally grouped in a
cluster around the top of the anticline (Fig.2. 1),

Fig 2.1-Reservoir with a gas-cap in which gas injection is taking

place,Latil, M. (1980). Enhanced Oil Recovery (Institut Francais Du
Petrole Publications). Technip Editions

33
(b)-Anticlinal reservoir with an underlying aquifer in which water
injection is taking place. In this case the injectors will form a ring around

the reservoir (Fig. 2.2). Anticlinal reservoir with an underlying aquifer,

Latil, M. (1980). Enhanced Oil Recovery (Institut Francais Du Petrole

Publications). Technip Editions.

34
(c)-Monoclinal reservoir with gas-cap or aquifer undergoing gas or water
injection. The injectors are grouped in one or more lines located towards
the base of the reservoir in the case of water injection, towards the top in
the case of gas injection (Fig. 2.3).

Fig 2.3 Monoclinal reservoir with gas-cap or aquifer undergoing gas or

water injection ,Latil, M. (1980). Enhanced Oil Recovery (Institut
Francais Du Petrole Publications). Technip Editions

35
2.5-Analysis Oilfield Waters

Water analyses are used by the petroleum industry in studies related to

subsurface formation identification, pollution problems, water
compatibilities, corrosion, water-quality control, waterflooding, and
exploration. Efforts to standardize methods applicable to analyzing oilfield
waters have been made by the American Petroleum Institute (1968), and
currently similar efforts are being made by the American Society for
Testing and Materials.

The methods discussed in this chapter include wet chemical procedures for
calcium, magnesium, barium, carbon dioxide, sulfide, sulfur compounds,
selenium, oxygen, spent acid, fluoride, chloride, bromide, and iodide.
Instrumental methods are described for pH, Eh, specific gravity, resistivity,
suspended solids, acidity, alkalinity, oxygen isotopes, ammonium
nitrogen, phosphate, boron, arsenic, copper, nickel, lead, manganese, zinc,
cadmium, and silica. Also described are emission and atomic absorption
methods for lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium, magnesium,
calcium, barium, manganese, zinc, copper, iron, and lead; and emission
spectroscopic methods for aluminum, beryllium, boron, iron, manganese,
and strontium..

The methods used to analyze oilfield waters should be capable of

producing precise and accurate results. Methods applicable to analyzing
fresh waters may or may not be directly applicable to a petroleum-
associated water, but in general such a method will need modification or
complete redevelopment because the petroleum-associated water contains
a more complex and concentrated array of dissolved salts than the fresh
water.

36
2.6-Water System, Compatibility, and Treatment Water Quality
/Handling

If water quality is not maintained, higher injection pressures are

required to sustain desired injection rates. Also, corrosion problems
increase with time when lower-quality water is used. It is important to
protect the injection system against corrosion to preserve its physical and
chemical integrity and to prevent the generation of corrosion products.

The field operations generally are concerned with:

Reducing operating costs. Properly designed, constructed, operated,

and monitored facilities for a water injection reduce the costs of treating
source water for injection and produced water for disposal. Properly treated
injection water reduces the costs associated with workovers and
stimulation of injection wells. Adequate corrosion and scale control
measures extend the operating life of equipment, decrease maintenance and
operating costs, and reduce lost production. Control of bacterial activity
can maintain sweet production, minimize the production of toxic and
corrosive gases, maintain product quality and value, and minimize the

costs associated with more expensive, sour service operations. Water

quality of any degree can be achieved; the goal in cost-effective treating is
to balance the cost of treating with the remedial costs of not treating.

Increasing oil production. Proper water treating, surface, and

downhole equipment assists in maintaining design water injection rates and
profiles to maximize oil production rate and ultimate recovery.

37
Meet environmental regulations. The goal here is to go beyond just
meeting environmental regulations and to exceed set regulations. To
participate in and to be a leader is setting requirements to adequately
protect the environment while maintaining appropriate economic
development for the employees, for the company, and for the country.
Properly designed and operated separation and treating facilities reduce the
amount of oil discharged with the produced water and the impact of that
oil upon the environment. Another example-adequate corrosion control
procedures reduce the occurrence of leaks that can cause oil and produced
water spills that harm people and the environment.

Figure 2-4- Integrated Treatment System for Injection or Discharge

Collins, A. G. (1975). Geochemistry of oilfield waters. Elsevier

Scientific Publ. Comp.

38
COMMON EQUATIONS

Porosity, φ

Δ𝑡log − Δ𝑡matrix
𝜙Sonic = 𝑆𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑐 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
Δ𝑡fluid − Δ𝑡matrix

(𝑊𝑦𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 − 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)

5 Δ𝑡log − Δ𝑡matrix
𝜙𝑆𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑐 = ×( ) 𝑆𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑐 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
8 Δ𝑡log

(𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟 − 𝐻𝑢𝑛𝑡 − 𝐺𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝜌matrix − 𝜌bulk (log)

𝜙Density = Density log porosity
𝜌matrix − 𝜌fuid

𝜙𝑁2 + 𝜙𝐷2 Porosity in a gas zone

𝜙𝑁𝐷𝑔𝑎𝑠 =√
2 from neutron and density

Formation factor, F :

𝐹 = 𝑎/𝜙 𝑚 General form of the equation

1.0
𝐹= 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠
𝜙 2.0

𝐹 = 0.81/𝜙 2.0 Consolidated sandstones

0.62
𝐹= Unconsolidated sands
𝜙 2.15

39
Formation-water resistivity:

𝑆𝑆𝑃 = −𝐾 × log (𝑅𝑚𝑓 /𝑅𝑤 ) Basic SP response equation

First-order approximation "of " Rw " from the SP"

𝑅𝑤 = 10(𝐾×log (𝑅𝑚) +𝑆𝑃)/𝐾

Water saturation:
1
𝑎 × 𝑅𝑤 𝑛 Water saturation in
𝑆𝑤 = ( )
𝑅𝑡 × 𝜙 𝑚 the uninvaded zone
1
𝑎 × 𝑅𝑚𝑓 𝑛 Water saturation in the
𝑆𝑥𝑜 =( )
𝑅𝑥𝑜 × 𝜙 𝑚 flushed zone
0.625
𝑅𝑥𝑜 /𝑅𝑡 Water saturation,
𝑆𝑤 = ( )
𝑅𝑚𝑓 /𝑅𝑤 ratio method

Bulk volume water:

𝐵𝑉𝑊 = 𝜙 × 𝑆𝑤

Permeability (estimated):

Permeability in
2 millidarcys, oil
𝜙3
𝐾𝑒 = (250 × ( )) reservoir
𝑆wirr
2
𝜙3
𝐾𝑒 = (79 × ( )) Permeability in
𝑆wirr
millidarcys, gas
reservoir

40
 Chapter 3

Data &Methods

41
3.1-Data

The data of well logging is provide for Halfaya oil filed in Iraq

And the water reservoir analysis from Misan Oil Company

A well HF127( 1870.71m-3615.08m) – Halfaya Oilfield Has the

following Data

STRT .m. 1870.71000 STARTDEPTH

STOP .m. 3615.08040. STOPDEPTH
STEP .m. 0.1524. :STEP
NULL . -999.25. NULL
VALUE
COMP . PetroChina International Iraq FZE
Iraq Branch:COMPANY
WELL . HF127-M127D1 :WELL
NAME
FLD . Halfaya :FIELD
NAME
RIGN . :Rig Name
RIGTYP . Land. :Rig Type
SON . :Service Order Number
SRVC . Schlumberger :SERVICE
COMPANY
DATE . 05/12/2015. :Log
Date
CNTY . DQ-029. :COUNTY
SLAB . State: :State/Province
Label
STAT . Missan. :STATE or
PROVINCE
PROV . Missan. :STATE or
PROVINCE
CTRY . Iraq. :COUNTRY
CONT_REGION Continent Region
SECT . :Section
TOWN . :Township
RANG . :Range

42
3.1-Method

To delineate the mentioned aims of the study, data from the available open
hole logs such as Caliper log, Spontaneous Potential, Gamma Ray,
Density, Sonic, Neutron and Resistivity logs) of studied wells were used .

The proper corrections (i.e. Shale effect, borehole conditions, depth of

invasion, etc) for Gamma ray , neutron, density and resistivity log , were
applied before commencing the open hole well log analysis as based

on Schlumberger’s well log analysis basic Corrections using Interactive

Petrophysics Program v3.5 Program v3.5 was used for well logs analysis
and plotted to evaluate petrophysical properties of one of the Formation in
oil field of Iraq.

Properties of Reservoir:
For determining reservoir properties of the Formation, petrophysical
parameters must be obtained and evaluated. These parameters include:

43
3.2.1- Volume of shale (Vsh):

To derive Vsh from gamma ray (GR Log), it is imperative that the gamma
ray index (IGR), determined by using equation of Schlumberger (1974)
IGR= (GRlog- GRmin) / (GRmax – GRmin) (3.1)

Where: GRlog = gamma ray reading of formation;

GRmin = minimum gamma ray reading (clean sand or carbonate):

GRmax = maximum gamma ray reading (shale).

Calculate The Clay volume for HF127( 1870.71m-3615.08m) –

Halfaya Oilfield

In order to calculate the Clay Volume using the Interactive

Petrophysics Software , we must choose one of the methods used to
calculate it. Here we will use the Gamma Ray and Den/NPHI
method
The procedure
1- We Input the Gamma Ray and Den/NPHI readings from the las
file to be as a curve for interpretation
2- After interpretation the output will appear on the right side
3- If the results that appeared do not show convergence in the
values of the VCLGR and VCLN, then we should correlate the
results
4- To correlate the results we should divide layers based on
Geological characteristics of the zone with a process called
Zonation
5- After the zonation we correlate the TNPH/RHOZ Xplot
(crossplot) for each zone as shown in figure (3.1)
6- Then the curve of VCLGR and VCLND will convergence as
shown in figure (3.2)

44
Figure (3.1)-Crossplot for all zones

45
Figure (3.2)- Well HF127 clay volume interpretation

46
3.2.2- Porosity:

Total porosity within Formation was determined from combination of

Neutron – Density derived porosities. Neutron log measure the direct
porosity after corrected based on the equation of Tiab & Donaldson (1996)

ØNcorr = ØN – (Vsh * ØNsh) (3.2)

Where

ØNcorr. = corrected porosity is derived from Neutron log for no clean

rocks

ØNsh = Neutron porosity for shale.

Density porosity is derived from the bulk density of clean liquid filled
formations when the matrix density (ρma) and the density of the saturating
fluids (ρf) are known, using Wyllie et al., (1958) equation

ØD = (ρma – ρb) / (ρma – ρf) (3.3)

Where ρma = density of matrix (2.71 gm/cm3 for limestone, 2.87 gm / cm3
for dolomite, 2.61 gm / cm3 for sandstone),

ρf = density of fluid (1 gm/ cm3 for fresh water, 1.1 gm/ cm3 for saline
water).

In intervals, whose shale volume is more than 10%, we used equation

below to remove shale effect from porosity calculation

ØDcorr = ØD – (Vsh * ØDsh) (3.4)

Where ØDcorr. = corrected porosity is derived from Density log for no clean
rocks: ØDsh = density porosity for shale.

Total porosity (Øt) is then calculated as follows

Øt = (ØN + ØD) / 2 (3.5)

47
The effective porosity (Øe) is then calculated, using equation of
Schlumberger (1998) [ after total porosity corrected from shale volume

Øe = Øt * (1-Vsh) (3.6)

Sonic log (Δt) based on Wyllie time- average equation (3.7) was used to
determine primary porosity

ØS = (Δtlog - Δtma) / (Δtfl - Δtma) (3.7)

(8)

Δt is increased due to the presence of hydrocarbon. To correct for

hydrocarbon effect, Hilchie (1978) suggested the following empirical
equations:

Ø = ØS * 0.7 (gas) . (3.8)

(9)

Ø = ØS * 0.9 (oil) (3.9)

Then, in order to correct sonic porosity from shale effect within

formation, the following equation is used

ØScorr = ØS – (Vsh* ØSsh) (3.10)

Where

ØS = sonic derived porosity: Δtlog = interval tansit time in the formation;

Δtma = interval transit time in the matrix; Δtfl = interval transit time in the
fluid in the formation; ØSsh = apparent porosity of the shale; ØScorr =
corrected sonic porosity.

Secondary porosity index (SPI) was computed by the difference between

total porosity and the primary porosity (that is determined from sonic log)
after made corrections for shaliness and hydrocarbon effect

SPI = ( Øt – Øscorr) (3.11)

48
3.2.3- Water and Hydrocarbon Saturation:

Water saturation for the uninvaded zone was calculated according to

Archie (1942) :

Sw = {(a * Rw) / (Rt * _m)}1/n (3.12)

Water saturation in the invaded zone (Sxo) can be simply calculated from
the same equation above by replacing Rw with Rmf (mud filtrate resistivity
available from well log headers) and Rt with Rxo (measured resistivity of
the invaded zone):

Sxo = {(a * Rmf) / (Rxo * _m)}1/n (3.13)

Where:

Rw = Resistivity of water formation that is previously determined from

SP log.

a = tortuosity factor;

m = cementation factor;

n = saturation exponent.

Than can be calculating the hydrocarbon saturation, by using the

following equation:

Sh = 1 – Sw (3.14)

Moveable hydrocarbon saturation was calculated based on Schlumberger

(1998) equation:

MOS = Sxo - Sw (3.15)

Whereas residual oil saturation was calculated from Schlumberger (1987)

as follows equation:

ROS = 1 - Sxo . (3.16)

49
Calculate porosity and water saturation for HF127(
1870.71m-3615.08m) – Halfaya Oilfield

Procedure

1- We Input the required Data readings from the las file to be as a curve
for interpretation.
2- the results of porosity, water saturation, salinity, lithology and
matrix will appear on the right side, but it’s still need to correlate as
shown in figure (3.3).
3- To correlate our results we need to divide the layers based on the
calliper log reading since in the zones that have a high reading
(caved hole) will give a high porosity reading in neutron log
different from the actual values.
4- The last step we need to emphasise Rw value is correct by using
RLA3/PHIE plot as shown in figure (3.4)

50
Figure (3.3)- Porosity and water saturation interpretation for
HF127

51
Figure(3.4) RlA3/PHIE Plot for well HF127

52
3.2.4- Determination of Archie's Parameters (a,m,n) Using
Pickett Plot:

Archie (1942) provided a path from qualitative log interpretation to

quantitative log analysis through an equation that required parameters
which were not available from logs, and which, in the time before
calculators and computers, required some effort to solve. Aware of ability
of people to recognize pattern, Pickett, (1966) developed a graphical
solution to Archie's equation which allowed the quick determination of
water saturation by observation of the data, and without the need for
numerical calculations. As calculators and computers became available,
the primary function of those two methods has turned from the quick
prediction of water saturation to the prediction of calculation parameters to
be used in faster and more detailed interpretation methodologies .

In this study Pickett's plot method has been used in the determination
of Archie's parameters from well log using Interactive Petrophysics
software (V.3.5). It is a graphical solution to Archie equation that involves
plotting true or deep resistivity (Rt) against porosit φ) oth on logarithmic
scale.

Archie's coefficients (a, m, and n), which are more sensitive to pore
type, should be determined for different types of carbonate rocks. Classic
petrophysics holds that Archie's parameters are constant for a given sample
of reservoir rocks, but an increasing number of cases are being encountered
where these coefficients have been observed to vary, that's why many
techniques where used to determine Archie parameters

According to Pickett, (1966) :

53
 𝐚 𝐑𝐖
𝐑 𝐭 = 𝝋m 𝐧 (3.17)
𝐒𝐰

Where,

Sw: the water saturation (fraction),

Rw: the water resistivity (ohm-m),

Rt : formation resistivity (ohm-m),

a, n, and m: Archie’s parameters (dimensionless).

Rearranging the equation will produce linear arrangement of data as

following:

log Rt = − m logφ + log a Rw − n log Sw (3.18)

If Sw = 100% (in water bearing zones), the equation will be reduced to:

log Rt = − m logφ + log a Rw (3.19)

Equation (3.19) is an equation of a straight line on log-log plot, where m is

the slope and (a.Rw) is the intercept at φ=1. As Rw is known from other
sources, (a) may be easily found. There are, however, some limitations
regarding the application of Archie’s formula that may be summarized as
follow:

1- The method requires the presence of water zone.

2- The values of (m) and (a) are averaged for the selected formation.

54
3.2.6- Bulk Volume Analysis

Bulk volume of water (BVW) is the product of formation water saturation

(Sw) and its porosity .

BVw = Sw * Ø (3.20)

Also the bulk volume of water in the invaded zone is calculated as follow:

BVxo = Sxo * Ø (3.21)

Porosity Combinations Cross Plots:

The porosity combinations cross plots (Density vs. Neutron Cross Plot,
M-N , and Matrix Identification (MID) Cross Plot) were used to identify
main lithology, mineralogy, and matrix of Asmari Formation according to
Schlumberger (2005) [21] equations:

For M-N cross plot:

M = (Δtfl - Δtlog) / (ρb - ρf) ×0.01 (3.22)

(23) N = (ØNf - ØN) / (ρb - ρf) (3.23)

Where: Δtf = interval transit time in fluid =189 (m/s) for fresh water = 185
(m/s) for salt mud.

Δt = interval transit time (the log reading).

Ρb = formation bulk density (the log reading).

Ρf= fluid density 1 (g/cm3) for fresh water or 1.1 (g/cm3) for salt mud.

ØNf = neutron porosity for fluid =1.

ØN = neutron porosity.

55
For Matrix Identification (MID) Cross Plot:
𝜌b−∅ ta 𝜌f
Rhomaa = (3.24)
1−∅ta

Δ𝑡log−∅ ta Δ𝑡𝑓
Δtmaa = (3.25)
1−∅𝑡𝑎

Where:

Rhomaa : apparent density of matrix (gm/cc), Δt maa : apparent transit time

in rock matrix (μsec/ft), and, φta : is the apparent total porosity.

56
 Chapter Four

Results & Conclusion

57
4.1-Final results of Well HF127

After interpretation, we have the following data

Figure (4.1)- VCL, porosity and water saturation of well HF127

58
4.2-Concept of Cutoff

Cutoff:- Upper or lower limiting value of a reservoir parameter.

Values outside these limits are not used in computation or other data-
handling manipulation.

Shale content (Vsh)

eliminate the portion of the formation which contains
large quantities of shale (maximum shale content tolerable to be
productive).
Vshcutoff ≈ 20 to 30 %

Water saturation (Sw)

eliminate the portion of the formation which contains large volumes of
water in the pore space. The water saturation cutoff ensures sufficient
effective permeability to be productive

Cutoff porosity and net formation thickness

In producing petroleum reservoirs, a lower limit of porosity (and
permeability) exists below which oil production is not economically
significant. The reasons are that the volume of oil contained in low porosity
rock is limited, and the rock is not conducive to flow due to relatively low
permeability that is generally associated with low porosity. The limiting
value is known as cutoff porosity. Typical porosity cutoff points are found
to be around 5% in conventional oil reservoirs. Hence, only the portion of
the geologic formation showing greater porosity is considered in reservoir
performance predictions. An implicit fact is that the geologic intervals with
higher porosity have better permeability. However, it must be mentioned
that many tight and unconventional reservoirs have lower porosity and are
often produced through a network of natural and induced fractures.

The concept of cutoff porosity leads to the introduction of net thickness as

opposed to gross thickness of a geologic formation in estimating oil and
gas reserves. Net thickness represents the portion of the hydrocarbon-
bearing formation that can be produced by conventional means where
porosity is relatively high. Typical values of the net to gross thickness
ratio are in the range of 0.65–0.85.

59
For HF127 Cutoffs is , Ø =0.1 Sw = 0.50 Vsh = 0.30

Figure (4.2)- Cutoffs for Porosity, Water saturation and Clay volume

60
 Table (4.1)- Cutoffs Reservoir results for HF127

Gross Net Res Net/Gross Res. AvPhi Av Sw AvVcl Av Sh

interval. Res. Res. Res. Sh =1-Sw

Meters Meters Ratio Dec Dec Dec Dec

1744.68 882.09 0.506 0.195 0.647 0.095 0.353

Table (4.2)- Cutoffs Pay results for HF127

Gross Net Pay Net/Gross Pay. AvPhi Av Sw AvVcl Av Sh

interval. Pay. Pay. Pay. Sh =1-Sw

Meters Meters Ratio Dec Dec Dec Dec

1744.68 316.84 0.182 0.174 0.313 0.085 0.687

61
4.3-Oil water contact

• The oil/water: contact is usually gradational, covering a few to many feet.

The top of the transition zone is the base of clean oil production. The base
of the transition zone is the top of free water.

• Oil/water contact: the depth where water saturation first reaches close to
100%. This is sometimes called the free water level (FWL). This can
usually be picked on the resistivity log where resistivity reaches its lowest
values in a clean, porous reservoir.

• Transition zone: A transition zone normally shows an increase in water

saturation as depth increases, culminating in close to 100% water
saturation.

62
Figure (4.3)

63
Pore throat type analysis 6 types as you can see from the figure above.

Figure (4.4)-T scan experimental study on different pore structures Focus

on Micro‐Mesopore, Macro‐Vug pore and Frac.‐pore type.

64
Figure(4.5)-water-flooding experiments study on different pore structures

Figure (4.5)-phase (oil‐water) flow characteristics for different pore type

3 pore types of oil‐water relative permeability curve

65
Figure (4.6)-Vugs, Macropore & Frac. pore make a high permeability
streak

Figure (4.7)-Core flood experiments of a reservoir with high

permeability streak. Water break through earlier by the Commingled
water injection

66
Conclusion

1- From the water analysis report, we can classification water formation

in iraq oil field as highly saline water [ highly saline water from 10,000ppm
to 35,000 ppm ] .

2- Water type of the Halfaya oil field is Cacl2 , which can reaction with
other types of water if the water injection contains Na2So4, MgSO4 and
2NaHCo3 , which can damage the permeability of the formation because
the result of the reaction is
insoluble precipitate compound .

3- Before injection water in Iraq oil field, it's necessary to make sure that
water not contine high concentration of Na , Mg and Hco3.

4- Th reports water analysis show that formation water contains high

percentage of cations salts ( Na+¹ (60369.9 mg/L) Ca+² (8000 mg/L) ,
Mg+² (1944 Mg/L) ) and for anions salts ( Cl-¹ (114487.5 Mg/L ) , So4-⁴
(360 mg /L)).

5- PH of water formation is 6.9 which consider as normal range of PH (

nether neither acidic nor base).

6- In order to avoid damage the formation we shouldn’t inject fresh water.

7- The best zone for injection should be under a hydrocarbon layer and
should contain a high percentage of water saturation as shown in figure
(4.8)

67
Figure (4.8)- suggested zones for water injection
68
 Zone Depth (m) Sw Ø
2425 0.562 0.154
2430 0.57 0.199
2437 0.569 0.203
2441 0.547 0.205
1 2444 0.559 0.204
2449 0.579 0.189
2453 0.553 0.196
2457 0.527 0.207
2468 0.598 0.189
2478 0.618 0.163
Average Cal. 0.5682 0.1909
Table(4.3)- Porosity and water saturation for zone 1

Zone Depth (m) Sw Ø

2998.5 0.993 0.0451
3001.4 1 0.0394
2 3007 1 0.01
3022 1 0.0188
Average Cal. 0.9983 0.0283
Table(4.4)- Porosity and water saturation for zone 2

69
 Zone Depth (m) Sw Ø
3077 0.396 0.14
3081.2 0.139 0.05
3 3085 0.705 0.0113
3095 0.858 0.0125
Average Cal. 0.5245 0.0535
Table(4.5)- Porosity and water saturation for zone 3

Zone Depth (m) Sw Ø

3251 0.547 0.211
3253 0.585 0.158
3260 0.591 0.183
3264 0.588 0.262
4 3269 0.532 0.219
3275 0.681 0.181
3279 0.49 0.202
3287 0.64 0.126
3289 0.571 0.138
3290 0.56 0.12
Average Cal. 0.5785 0.1766
Table(4.6)- Porosity and water saturation for zone 4

70
 Zone Depth (m) Sw Ø
3491 0.583 0.267
3497 0.582 0.236
5305 0.541 0.217
3512 0.816 0.258
5 3557 0.641 0.13
5365 0.661 0.156
3573 0.718 0.127
3577 0.622 0.145
Average Cal. 0.6455 0.192
Table(4.7)- Porosity and water saturation for zone 5

• As we note in the figure and tables above, the first zone is suitable
for water injection, as it has a high water saturation of about 56.8%
and a good porosity of about 19.09%.
• The second and third zones are not good for injection because of the
low porosity of about 2.8% and 5.3% respectively.
• The fourth and fifth zones are good for injection because of the high
porosity of about 17.6% and 19.2% respectively, and also for higher
water saturation or about 57.8% and 64.5% respectively.

71
Reference

• Asquith, G. B., Krygowski, D., Gibson, C. R., & Asquith, G.

B. (2004). Basic well log analysis. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists.
• Bassiouni, Z. (2008). Theory, measurement, and interpretation of
well logs. Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, Soc. of
Petroleum Engineers.
• LIU, H. O. N. G. Q. I. (2019). Principles and applications of well
logging. SPRINGER.
• Ellis, D. V., & Singer, J. M. (2010). Well logging for earth
scientists. Springer.
• Okotie, S., & Ikporo, B. (2018). Reservoir Engineering:
Fundamentals and Applications (1st ed. 2019 ed.). Springer.
• Ahmed, T. (2006). Reservoir Engineering Handbook. Gulf
Professional Publishing.
• Dake, L. P. (2001). The Practice of Reservoir Engineering (Revised
Edition) (Volume 36) (Developments in Petroleum Science, Volume
36) (1st ed.). Elsevier Science.
• Davies, M., & B., S. P. J. (2006). Oilfield water technology.
NACE International.
• Collins, A. G. (1975). Geochemistry of oilfield waters. Elsevier
Scientific Publ. Comp.

72
Appendix
Table A.1

SAMLE POINT
No Test Unit Fresh Marsh EDS(A) EDS(B) EDS(C) EDH(A) EDH(B) EDH(C) REMARK
1 Specific gravity At 115c 1 1.027 1.002 1 1.002 1.043 1.049 1.04
2 T.S.S Mg/L 4 26 82 91 81 52 74 27
3 Oil Content Mg/L ZERO ZERO 59 50 23 297 125 23
4 Turbidity NTU 3 18 84 64 68 54 103 42
5 PH @25C - 7.5 8.6 5.4 5.2 5.6 4.5 4.5 4.5
6 Conductivity@25C S/Cm 2.28 43.2 8.6 10.1 7.6 80 89.5 81
7 T.D.S Mg/L 1580 36260 6190 7530 5480 65150 78950 70260
8 Total hardness Mg/L 628 12400 1400 1640 1360 11200 13000 11800
9 Do(dissolved oxygen) Mg/L 5.7 6.2 0.4 0.7 1.2 1.4 1.8 0.9
10 Co2 Mg/L ZERO ZERO 3 4 3 11 15 12
11 NA+(sodium) Mg/L 260 7200 1535 1465 1115 17500 18100 16900
12 k(potassium) Mg/L 4 115 29 32 23 280 340 290
13 Sulphide CONTENT Mg/L ZERO 0.05 2 4.9 2.4 7 5 4
14 CALCIUM( Ca˖² ) Mg/L 151 1200 400 545 400 2500 3100 3600
15 Mg˖²(magnesium) Mg/L 70 2100 90 35 75 900 1100 500
16 Fe˖(Iron) Mg/L 0.17 ZERO 0.7 1.6 0.7 17 24 19
17 cl˗(chloried) Mg/L 390 14200 5226 2982 2272 347900 37630 34080
18 So₄˗²(sulfate) Mg/L 527 5000 450 440 430 700 700 900
19 Hco₃ Mg/L 170 56 104 97 109 97 122 95
20 Co₃ Mg/L 1 33 ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO
21 OH Mg/L ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO

73
Table A.2 :

No. Test content Unit Fresh Marsh

1 specific gravity at 15°C 1 1.027
2 T.S.S mg/l 4 26
3 Oil content mg/l zero zero
4 Turbidity NTU 3 18
5 PH at 25°C 7.5 8.6
6 Conductivity at 25°C ms/Cm 2.28 43.2
7 T.D.S mg/l 1580 36260
8 Total hardness mg/l 628 12400
9 Do (dissolved oxygen) mg/l 5.7 6.2
10 CO2 mg/l zero zero
11 Sulphide content mg/l zero 0.05
12 NA+ (sodium) mg/l 260 7200
13 K (potassium) mg/l 4 115
14 Calicium (Ca+2 ) mg/l 151 1200
15 Mg+2 (magnesium) mg/l 70 2100
16 Fe+(iron) mg/l 0.17 zero
17 Cl-(chloride) mg/l 390 14200
18 SO42- (sulfate) mg/l 527 5000
19 HCO3- mg/l 170 56
20 CO32- mg/l 1 33
21 OH- mg/l zero zero

74
Table A.3

Produced water Anylisis

Formation Mishrif Nahr Umr
No
Cations
1 Sodium ,Na+(mg/l) 60369.4 67268.8
2+
2 Calcium,Ca (mg/l) 8000 11600
2+
3 Magnesium,Mg (mg/l) 1944 1458
+
4 Potassium, K (mg/l) 1707.3 858
+
5 Strontium,Sr2 (mg/l) 497.9 386.1
6 Iron ,Fe (mg/l) Nil 137.3
Anions
1 Cloride, Cl- (mg/l) 114487.5 129575
2- 360
2 Sulphate, SO4 (mg/l) 360
3 Carbonate ,CO32- (mg/l) Nil Nil
4 Bicarbonate,HCO (mg/l) 451.4 329.4
Other properties
1 PH 6.9 6
2 Specific Gravity@15.6°C 1.1382 1.144
Resistivity
0.0519 0.057
3 ohm-meter@25°C
4 Dried @180 °C(ppm) 166840 185340

75
 Table A.4

Formation Water Properties

Formation Unit Jeribe Upper Kirkuk MB1 MB2 MC1 Mauddud Nahr UMR
PVT Sample ˗ Before Y2010 Before Y2010 Before Y2010 Before Y2010 Before Y2010 After Y2010 Before&After Y2010
Water type ˗ CaCl₂ CaCl₂ CaCl₂ CaCl₂ ˗ CaCl₂ CaCl₂
PH ˗ 6.45 7.1 5.95 6.9 2.2 7.12 6.3
Specific gravity(15.56C) g/cm3 1.1583 ˗ 1.14115 1.1382 1.1468 1.1189 1.121
Resistivity (25 C) ohm.m 0.053 ˗ 0.0523 0.0519 ˗ 0.06 0.068
Total salinity ppm 206630.5 ˗ 202795 166840 202328 152568 166661
Total Hardness mg/l ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ 1638 16562
Na⁺ mg/l ˗ ˗ 67257 60369 ˗ 51828 60015
Ca²⁺ mg/l ˗ ˗ 9200 8000 ˗ 5125 8681
Mg²⁺ mg/l ˗ ˗ 2430 1944 ˗ 447 993
Fe²⁺ mg/l ˗ ˗ Nil Nil ˗ 0 74
Ba²⁺ mg/l ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ 0 1
K⁺ mg/l ˗ ˗ 2081 1707 ˗ 1584 716
Sr²⁺ mg/l ˗ ˗ 1141 498 ˗ 380 356
Clˉ mg/l ˗ 74565 129575 114488 ˗ 89733 107098
So₄²ˉ mg/l ˗ ˗ 320 360 ˗ 1837 874
HCo₃ˉ mg/l ˗ ˗ 427 451 ˗ 1634 7263
Co₃²ˉ mg/l ˗ ˗ Nil Nil ˗ 0 0
OHˉ mg/l ˗ - / / ˗ 0 0

76
77