jyun syung

8/12/2019 Jyun Syung

1/30

Carbon Dioxide Demonstration ProjectSupporting Research at KU

Jyun-Syung Tsau presented for

Tertiary Oil Recovery ProjectAdvisory Board Meeting

October 19-20, 2001


2/30

Supporting Research Activities

Simulation Hall-Gurney field (LKC formation) Bemis-Shutts field (Arbuckle formation)

Laboratory experiments Slim-tube displacement Residual oil measurement


3/30

Simulation

Reservoir simulator VIP black oil simulator

Primary production, waterflooding VIP compositional simulator

CO 2 flooding


4/30

Compositional Simulator

Equation of state (EOS) for CO 2-oil phase behavior characterization and properties calculation

Peng-Robinson 3-parameter EOS model


5/30

Typical Data Preparation for

Compositional Simulation C7+ characterization (sub-grouping

heavy end) Pseudoization (grouping) Phase behavior calculation (swelling

test) Slim-tube displacement


6/30

Laboratory Displacement Data to Fine

Tune Reservoir Simulator Slim-tube displacement experiment

Ideal porous media Oil recovery attributed to phase behavior MMP (minimum miscibility pressure)

indicates the pressure required to developmultiple-contact miscibility

Fine tune EOS parameters in reservoirsimulator


7/30

Schematic of Slim-tube Experiment Apparatus

C O

2

s o u r c e

Milton Roypump

Effluent

N2 s o

ur c e

C O

2

O i l

T

TT

ISCOpump

ISCOpump

BPR

T


8/30

Oil Recovery Performance in Slim-tube Experiment(Letsch #7 oil)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2CO2 injection (HCPV)

O i l p r o

d u c e

d ( H C P V )

1305 psia1015 psia

Temp: 105 F


9/30

MMP Measurements of Letsch #7 Oil

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

Pressure (psia)

R e c o v e r y

( % )

Recovery at 1.0 HCPV CO2 injection


10/30

Oil Recovery Performance Match

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

CO2 injection (HCPV)

O i l p r o

d u c e

d ( H C P V )

ExperimentSimulation_bip0.05Simulation_bip0.0735

Pressure = 1305 psia


11/30

Determination of Residual Oil Saturation

to Carbon DioxideWhy it is important? Miscibility developed by multiple

contact results in variable amount ofoil left behind in CO 2-swept zone

Uncertainty in projection of oilrecovery by the simulator


12/30

Critical Issues to the Measurements

Measurement needs to account for Well defined development of

miscibility Representative fluid and rock

properties


13/30

Schematic of Residual Oil SaturationMeasurement Apparatus


14/30

Characteristics of Slim-tube and

Core SampleSlim-tube Core sample

Length (inch) 459.48 1.9205

I.D. (inch) 0.2425 0.9845Bulk volume (cc) 347.80 23.96

Pore volume (cc) 127.76 5.26

Porosity (%) 36.73 21.95Permeability (md) 4900 453.73

Porous media Glass bead Berea sandstone


15/30

Future Tasks

Investigate the effect of displacementrate, core length and structure on

residual oil saturation determination Investigate the effect of water saturation

on the residual oil saturation to CO 2


16/30

Evaluation of Arbuckle Crude Oil for Oil

Recovery by CO 2 Displacement Conduct experiment to measure MMP of

crude oil obtained from Arbuckle

formation Perform simulation to match current field

condition and test the reservoir response

to pressurization process


17/30

MMP Measurements of Peavey #B1 Oil(Bemis-Shutts field)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

Pressure (psia)

O i l r e c o v e r y

( % O

O I P )

Temp: 108 F


18/30

Current Reservoir Condition

Average reservoir pressure is around500 psia, which is not high enough for

CO 2 miscible displacement Reservoir must be pressurized


19/30

Approaches

Construct a generic model tosimulate the process of Primary production Pressurization

Model contains 126 active production wells in a 2 by 2

square miles area (2560 acres)


20/30

Grid Cell System Used in the Model


21/30

Cross Section of the Reservoir Formation

11 layers with permeability rangingbetween 0.2 ~5 md in aquitard and 50~1500 md in production zones

86 ft

2 miles

a q u

i f e r

3486'

3400'


22/30

Satisfactory Match

Simulation results were to match Reservoir average pressure Cumulative oil and water production Current oil and water production rate


23/30

Observations

Reservoir is a layered reservoir with high permeability contrast between layers

Bottom water drive Edge water drive does not provide enoughenergy to support the average reservoir

pressure and production performance


24/30

Pressure Distribution at the End of Primary Production(Beginning of Pressurization)


25/30

Simulation Tests to Pressurize a Project Area

5 spot pattern (10 acres) with 6confining injectors (within 120 acres)


26/30

Well Condition Parameters During the

Pressurization Injector

5-spot: BHP: 2000 psia, Qmax: 3000 bbl/day Confining area: BHP: 2000 psia, Qmax: 3000

bbl/day Producer

5-spot: shut-in Around confining area: BHP: 1100 psia, Qmax:

300 bbl/day Other active producers : BHP: 300 psia, Qmax:

300 bbl/day


27/30

Pressure Distribution After 3- years Pressurization


28/30

Summary of Pressurization Process

The magnitude of pressure increasewithin a pattern depends on the size ofthe pattern, confining area, and bottomhole pressure control of injectors and

producers. The ultimate pressures within the

pattern varied from 1200 psia to 1500 psia.


29/30

Preliminary Results

Attainable reservoir pressure mightslightly below the MMP as required for a

miscible CO 2 displacement Oil recovery remains relatively high (70

~85%) for a few hundred psi below MMP


30/30

Current Status

Oil and gas samples collected from thewellhead and separator were analyzed byCore-Lab

High nitrogen content was found on someof the separator samples through the qualitycheck, which suggests the needs to measureMMP and oil recovery using a live oilsample

Detailed PVT test and swelling test would be conducted by Core-Lab, and data would be used for compositional simulation

jyun syung

Documents