Minutes - PWRI
(Calgary, September 20-21, 1999)

Monday, September 20, 1999

The meeting began at 8:30 AM at the PanCanadian facility in Calgary. Attending the meeting were Luis Acosta of BP Amoco, Paul Jones of Chevron, Kitt Ravnkilde of Maersk, Bill Beckie of PanCanadian, Jean-Louis Detienne of Elf Acquitaine, Paul van den Hoek of Shell, Antonio Luiz Serra de Souza of Petrobras, Robert Sydansk and Mark Tuckwood of Marathon, John Shaw of Statoil, Bob Siegfried of GRI, John McLennan of TerraTek, Alastair Simpson of Triangle, David Davies and Bjarni Palsson of Heriot-Watt, Lloyd Barfoot, Tony Settari and Ron Harisch of Duke Engineering, and Ahmed Abou-Sayed of Advantek.

Project Administration

Bob Siegfried presented an update on the administrative and financial aspects of the project. There are currently 12 members in the consortium (BP Amoco, Chevron, Conoco, Elf Acquitaine, Maersk, Marathon, Mobil, Norsk Hydro, PanCanadian, Petrobras, Shell, and Statoil). AGIP has indicated their intention to join, and is currently processing the contract documents. Alastair Simpson reported that Kerr-McGee had expressed a serious interest in joining, and that he will be following up with them. The issue of additional fees for those joining late was discussed. AGIP has been advised that they would not be charged a late fee, as they had expressed their intent to join prior to the deadline. After discussion, the sponsors agreed not to charge a late fee to Kerr-McGee, due to the data and experience that they would be expected to bring to the project. The sponsors agreed that the issue of late fees for any additional companies joining the project would be handled on a case-by-case basis. A financial report on the project was distributed and will be posted on the website. Bob Siegfried noted that the final invoice would be distributed in November, 1999.

Project management issues were discussed, and some changes to progress reporting were outlined. These changes were designed to facilitate greater involvement of the Task Mentors in project progress and management. In a later, sponsors-only session on Tuesday 21 September, the sponsors agreed that the Task Mentors should have a more active role in the project. The specific mechanism for encouraging involvement will be to have the Task Mentors rather than the contractors report on the progress of each task at the next Steering Committee meeting.

Project Overview

John McLennan outlined the overall philosophy of the project, and the steps planned to reach the final objective. Ultimately, the project should result in the compilation of reviewed and tested "best practices" for produced water injection. To the extent possible tools to aid in the implementation of these "best practices" will be included in a software "toolbox" available to all project sponsors.

An overview of the project status will be prepared and distributed separately from these minutes. In addition, the slides used for this presentation, as well as others, will be distributed to the sponsors (subject to data confidentiality restrictions).

Review of Status of Tasks

Task 1 - Monitoring

1. John McLennan provided a review of Task 1 progress. The following issues were raised during the presentation and discussion.
2. J. Shaw - Data from PEA-23 should be available to the project before January.
3. P. van den Hoek - The opportunity to review and provide feedback on intermediate results would be useful. John McLennan will distribute results and accept feedback from any interested sponsor. In addition, he will maintain a list of reports and tools that have been released to sponsors.
4. K. Ravnkilde - Where do we stand on Hydraulic Impedance Testing (HIT)? McLennan reported that the current data is mostly from BP Amoco. Shell may have data from PDO; McLennan will follow up with van den Hoek. Shaw may be able to gain access to a relevant Snorre dataset.
5. There was some discussion of the emphasis to be placed on produced water quality, and means to treat produced water in order to avoid damaging the formation during injection. It was observed that one of the key elements necessary to address the choice between treatment to avoid formation damage vs. well stimulation to mitigate damage is an accurate estimate of the overall costs associated with each option. Some of the cost issues will be addressed in Task 4, Stimulation.
6. Bjarni Palsson reviewed the analysis of Hall Plots, directed toward the development of a tool to allow earlier detection of injectivity impairment.

Task 2 - Matrix Injection

1. David Davies reported progress on the matrix injection task. He noted that many sponsors had extensive experience with coreflood experiments, and opened a discussion regarding means by which some of the accumulated knowledge of the sponsors might be shared. The result of that discussion was that the contractors submit their recommendations for "best practices" to the sponsors for review, resulting in a product that is consistent with the operators’ coreflooding experience. Other discussion items are noted below.
2. K. Ravnkilde noted that a core testing JIP focused on chalk was being set up in Norway. She can supply reference in formation regarding this project.
3. A. Abou-Sayed pointed out that BPAmoco has some formation damage models, developed under PEA-23, that may be made available to the project.
4. J. Detienne suggested that all available models be listed, along with whatever critical input the sponsors and contractors could provide regarding their utility and applicability.
5. P.Jones noted that a thesis is available which includes the WID equations, and that software based on this model would be available through him for evaluation purposes.
6. The lack of extensive field data on matrix injection was discussed.
7. K. Ravnkilde noted that some of the Maersk data may represent injection below frac gradient. John McLennan will review the data in more detail to determine whether matrix injection is important.
8. Bob Sydansk noted that the Yates Field is naturally fractured, so data from that field would not represent matrix injection, even at pressures below frac gradient.
9. Bill Beckie may have access to some data from downhole water separation that represents matrix injection.
10. John McLennan noted that mechanical properties data from the Eider field would be very helpful. He will work with Paul van den Hoek to see if these data can be obtained.
11. Paul van den Hoek suggested that an additional field example of matrix injection may be available from NAM. McLennan and Davies will follow up with him.
12. Bob Sydansk noted that in heterogeneous reservoirs with high-perm "channels", the assumed average permeability often does not account for these high-perm streaks. Thus "matrix" injection is often more successful that expected, and may not be true matrix injection. They have observed high-perm cobble packs that act almost as fractures.
13. John McLennan observed that raw injection data would be much more valuable than injectivity index in any data submitted to the project.

Task 3 - Soft Sands

1. Tony Settari provided an update on the task status and reviewed the theory behind injection in soft sands. John Shaw observed that we needed to ensure that we did not focus on the theory to the exclusion of the practical analysis of the data submitted by the sponsors.
2. Lloyd Barfoot outlined the vision for soft sands "toolkit" product, and noted that a preliminary version should be available before the end of 1999.
3. Discussion of the planned Soft Sands workshop was deferred until later in the meeting.

Task 4 - Stimulation

1. David Davies summarized the status of the Stimulation task, with examples from PCP and Bullwinkle data.
2. Bob Sydansk noted that he should be able to facilitate access to Yates Field stimulation data.

Task 5 - Layered Formations

1. John McLennan reviewed the progress on the Layered Formations task, with emphasis on the development of a tool to allow detection of deviations from a radial flow baseline case. There was discussion of the reasons for inclusion of this task in the PWRI project. J. Detienne pointed out that layering had often been proposed as an explanation for many apparently anomalous observations. The sponsors had wanted to understand the response of layered media sufficiently to determine what responses might legitimately be attributable to layering.
2. Harisch reported that the Weyburn dataset includes layered formations.

Economic Drivers of PW Management

Ahmed Abou-Sayed presented some thoughts regarding the economic impact of produced water production, suggesting that operators often significantly underestimate the real costs associated with water production. Discussion ensued regarding the scale and scope of any economic analyses to be performed within the scope of the PWRI consortium. Several sponsors suggested that a means for estimating the cost of various treatment, shutoff, injection, stimulation, etc. options would be a useful addition to the toolbox. Such "price tags" would allow each operator to have valid information to feed into their individual economic model of a field, with the goal of reducing the life-cycle costs of produced water for that field. While agreeing that such economic information could be very useful, the sponsors agreed that this should be a "background" activity that should not draw resources from the successful completion of the technical tasks.

Task 6 - Horizontal Wells

1. Tony Settari and John McLennan summarized the work that has been accomplished on Task 6.

Data Confidentiality

Prior to breaking for the day, a discussion regarding the confidentiality of the data submitted by the sponsors to the project was initiated. The initial concept was that the sponsors would only submit data that could be shared among the sponsors, and eventually published after a two year confidentiality period from the completion of the project. This turned out to be impractical due to sponsor requirements and confidentiality obligations to partners. The Participation Agreement allows for sponsors submitting data to place restrictions on the use of that data, and the contractors have been abiding by those restrictions. These confidentiality obligations impact three aspects of the project:

1. The circulation among the sponsors of the list compiled by Alastair Simpson summarizing the data that has been submitted by all sponsors.
2. The PWRI Database product which is one of the project deliverables, and will therefore be available to all project sponsors.
3. The eventual publication of project results by contractors, after the two year confidentiality period outlined in the Participation Agreement.

The following procedures were agreed to address confidentiality concerns while facilitating timely completion of the project with the expected deliverables.

1. The data list compiled by Alastair Simpson for the use of the contractors in sorting, analyzing, and accessing the data will not be distributed to the sponsors, or posted on the website.
2. Each company that has submitted data will be contacted with an updated list of their data and asked to identify information that must be changed before the data may be included in the database. In addition, any data not to be included in the database must be indicated. Any future data submitted by a sponsor should be suitably "anonymized" before being submitted to the project.
3. Eventual publication of any sponsor’s data will require specific release from that sponsor.

The note described above will include a reply date, after which the lack of a reply will be construed as an indication that the company’s data may be used by the project without restriction. The date selected was 31 October 1999.

The meeting was adjourned until Tuesday, 21 September 1999.

Tuesday, September 21, 1999

Data Confidentiality - Continued

1. After an evening to mull over the issues, further discussion regarding data confidentiality was led by Alastair Simpson. As a first step, each sponsor company was asked to review their position on the confidentiality of the data they had submitted, or were planning to submit.
2. P. van den Hoek (Shell): He will check regarding Shell’s position, and will accept the responsibility to respond before the 31 October deadline.
3. Paul Jones (Chevron): Chevron’s goal is to provide non-confidential data. They will plan to change names if necessary.
4. K. Ravnkilde (Maersk): She will check regarding Maersk’s position. Certainly well and field names should be anonymized, however, they may wish additionally to avoid associating the name Maersk with any data they submit.
5. J. Shaw (Statoil): As far as possible, they will provide complete data for inclusion in the database. Some wells may need to be anonymized until partner approval for data release is secured. Heidrun data may be used without restriction.
6. Luiz Acosta (BP Amoco): Confidentiality is definitely an issue for BP Amoco. Well and field names should be kept confidential, except in the case of previously published data. BP Amoco will review their data list and provide direction.
7. R. Sydansk (Marathon): He will check further. Partner approval will likely be necessary. Marathon will anonymize any data submitted, if necessary. He will also seek approval for the release of Marathon’s North Sea field trial data.
8. J. Detienne (Elf Acquitaine): Their data have already been suitably anonymized.
9. W. Beckie (PanCanadian): Their data have been fully released to the consortium.
10. A. de Souza (Petrobras): He must check regarding Petrobras’ position. It will probably be acceptable to distribute data to sponsors, however restrictions on publication are likely.
11. J. Detienne suggested that if a company has a large amount of data, and the task of anonymizing appears formidable, it may be advisable to pick a few representative wells for submission to the project, rather than the entire dataset.
12. The issue of access to the database by companies not submitting data was raised. The concern is that if companies have full access, whether or not they submit data, they will not be motivated to go through the effort required to gather data and secure approval for its release. It was pointed out that some companies are going to be in a position to release more data that others, and that it would be difficult to provide preferential access to the database based somehow on the amount of data supplied by a company. The sense of the sponsors at this point was to rely on the good faith intentions of each of the sponsors to submit data, and encourage them in this process.

Task 7 - Database

Brian Odette led a discussion of several issues associated with the preliminary development of the PWRI database.

Given the international nature of the project and the submitted datasets, dealing in a consistent fashion with units is a non-trivial task. Odette outlined a proposed scheme where any units would be acceptable for data entry, but one of four systems of units ("oilfield", SI, Canadian, or "Northern European") would be chosen by each company for data retrieval. Considerable discussion ensued among the contractors and sponsors regarding the feasibility and importance of allowing more flexibility in the choice of units for data retrieval. The general sense of the sponsor opinion was that, while there would be some added value to an arbitrary choice of units, they could live with a fixed set. Their primary concern was to keep the process simple, and not consume undue project resources addressing the units issue. The contractors will formulate a plan regarding handling of units in the database, and submit it to the sponsors for feedback and approval.

Brian Odette demonstrated example database query screens, and solicited feedback regarding the content of the standard screens. The standard queries will be very user friendly, but will lack the flexibility of the more complex custom queries. Database users will be able to use either means to access the database. One specific database issue was cost information. If cost information regarding treatment, stimulation, etc. is available will there be a place in the database for it? Odette will consider this and provide options to the Project Manager.

Ahmed Abou-Sayed showed examples of the PWRI online newsletter. The newsletter is intended to facilitate communication among the sponsors and contractors, keep the project participants updated on information of interest regarding produced water, and generally serve a focal point for interaction between project meetings. Abou-Sayed solicited comments and suggestions based on the content of the first two issues. The first two issues were available via a link included with an email note. In the future, there will be a link to the newsletter from the website.

A discussion of the content of the "toolbox" product concluded with the agreement that as the contractors developed "tools" or tool concepts, they would distribute them to the sponsors for feedback, and thus gain direction in this area.

Soft Formations Workshop

The dates of 22-23 November 1999 were confirmed for a Soft Formations workshop to be held at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. It was emphasized that this workshop will NOT be a Steering Committee meeting, and that participants from sponsoring companies may or may not be their Steering Committee representatives. The primary objective of the meeting will be to capture the experiences of sponsors who have injected produced water in soft formations, so that these experiences may be distilled into "best practices" and ultimately delivered as part of the PWRI toolbox. To further define the scope of the workshop, the sponsors agreed that it should focus on injection well design as opposed to modeling and stimulation issues. The anticipated deliverables to the project from the workshop will include:

1. What lessons have been learned?
2. What technologies and methodologies are available?
3. What recommendations can be made regarding the application of these technologies and methodologies?
4. What new innovations are coming down the pipeline?
5. What action items for contractors or sponsors are necessary to follow up on workshop results.

In order to ensure that the workshop is planned to meet the sponsors objectives, the Task 3 task mentors (Detienne, Shaw, Skarstein, and Nordgaard) will work with David Davies to organize the workshop. Detienne and Shaw were present at the meeting and expressed their willingness to serve on the organizing committee, while the others will be solicited later.

Feedback and Planning

John McLennan led a discussion regarding how the project reporting and Steering Committee meetings might be improved. Two key points emerged from that discussion.

1. The technical discussion and project progress review aspects of the meetings need to be more clearly separated. The Steering Committee meeting should be a session focused on reviewing the goals of each task and the progress toward those goals. This should require no more than one day, and should not include detailed technical discussions. Ample time should be set aside for technical discussions separate from the formal Steering Committee project review session.
2. The project goals and deliverables must be more clearly stated and the progress toward those goals more clearly defined at the Steering Committee project review. Gantt charts or similar means for showing progress toward goals should be used.

To address these points, it was agreed that the next project meeting would be scheduled for 2 ½ days, with the first day devoted to a Steering Committee project review, the second day to technical discussions, and the final ½ day to financial, administrative and project management issues.

The next project meeting is planned for 7-9 February 2000. Kitt Ravnkilde agreed to explore the possibility of Maersk hosting the meeting in Copenhagen. Antonio Luiz Serra de Souza suggested that Petrobras could host the fall 2000 meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This suggestion was tentatively accepted by the sponsors.

At this point, a closed, sponsor-only session was held. After that discussion, the sponsors expressed the desire for the Task Mentors to become more actively involved in the direction of the project. As a specific means for accomplishing this, they agreed that the presentations at the Steering Committee project review session would be given by the Task Mentors rather than the contractors. The task mentors and contractors will share the responsibility for preparing for these presentations, through ongoing communication regarding task progress.