seismic

Jaime Almeida

Practical Applicationsand Novel EOR Methods

2009 Halliburton. All Rights Reserved. 2

Typical IOR/EOR Project Workflow

Project Management Screening for EOR methods.

Screening based in reservoir properties Predictive models Dynamic simulation

Laboratory investigation Wettability, Relative permeability Swelling test, MMP, MEC SWTT (Single Well Tracer Test) Sor Rock-Fluid compatibility test

Pilot test Pilot design Pilot implementation Pilot Monitoring Reservoir and EOR parameter calibration.

Field Plan implementation Full field simulation after model calibration with pilot test. Economic analysis


Project Life Cycle (Front-End Loading)

Initialization (Pre-FEL)

Visualization

Conceptualization

Definition

Execution

Operation

FrontFront--End Loading (FEL)End Loading (FEL)

Value Identification Value Realization


FEL applied to an EOR projectScenario analysis and Design Optimization, South America (National Oil Company) using DMS

1800 MMSTB oilfield under decline, Evaluate 4 potential scenarios for enhanced recovery and compare with base case. Optimize design parameters for water alternating gas scenario.

SITUATION

CHALLENGE

TOOLS

VALUE ADDED BY DMS

Identify an optimal recovery scenario based on an economic objective function (NPV). Rapidly optimize the design parameters for the WAG scenario using distributed computation (for DMS) with a combined spreadsheet model.

Fast determination optimal recovery scenario based on NPV using distributed computation.

Optimized WAG ratio, cycle length, injection rate, number of cycles.

DMS ( with distributed computing)

VIP

EXCEL (proprietary economics)

SPOTFIRE ( Data visualization package)

WAG OptimizationScenario Analysis

Optimum design

Best scenario

NPV Vs. RF


Screening criteria for EOR Methods


Steam/Polymer/Surfactant

Surfactant/Polymer/CO2

CO2/Polymer/Hydrocarbon/Surf. CO2/Hydrocarbon

Nitrogen/Hydrocarbon

Polymer degradation limit

Thermal limit

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

APID

e

p

t

h

(

m

)

Steam

Polymer

CO2

HydrocarbonN2

Combustion

Hot Water

Miscellar/PolymerSurfactant

Waterflooding

Screening for IOR/EOR methods


Steam/Polymer/Surfactant

Surfactant/Polymer/CO2

CO2/Polymer/Hydrocarbon/Surf. CO2/Hydrocarbon

Nitrogen/Hydrocarbon

Polymer degradation limit

Thermal limit

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

API

D

e

p

t

h

(

m

)

Steam

Polymer

CO2

HydrocarbonN2

Combustion

Hot WaterMiscellar/Polymer

Surfactant

Waterflooding

What is missing?Reservoir heterogeneity

Relative permeability/rock wettability

Reservoir geometry

Minimum Miscible Pressure (MMP)

Minimum Miscible Enrichment (MME)




Predictive models DOE Predictive models

Steamflood, In-situ Combustion, Polymer, Chemical Flood, CO2 Miscible Flood, Infill, Single-Well Chemical Tracer

CO2 Prophet and other commercial software SINTEF Petroleum Research CO2 predictive model (2007). EOR RATE MODEL (2008) (*)

Correlations Computer methods of Screening MAESTRO SelectEOR (ALBERTA RESEARCH COUNCIL) (2009)

(*) Source: Danish Energy Agency


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.0

SW

K

R

W

/

K

R

O

W

Wettability effect in Sor

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.0

SW

K

R

W

/

K

R

O

W

Residual Oil Saturation

Sorw=100-90=10%

Target for EOR after Waterflooding

Strong water wet system

Residual Oil Saturation

Sorw=100-70=30%

Target for EOR after Waterflooding

What is the target oil for EOR?


Conformance Control Solutions DUAL FLOW HORIZONTAL WELL DESIGN

Well Oil (QL= 1,000 bbl/day)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Apr/2004

May/200

5Jul/2

006Aug

/2007Sep/

2008Nov/

2009Dec/

2010Feb/

2012Mar/

2013Apr/2

014

Time (m/y)

W

e

l

l

O

i

l

P

r

o

d

u

c

t

i

o

n

T

o

t

a

l

(

b

b

l

)

Qw = 0 bbl/dQw = 500 bbl/dQw = 1000 bbl/dQw = 1500 bbl/dQw = 2000 bbl/dQw = 2500 bbl/dQw = 3000 bbl/d

Temperature 65 to 160 oC


Lpk

Nc

=

Importance of capillary number in defining EOR

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.00E-08 1.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00

Nc

S

o

r

(

E

O

R

)

/

S

o

r

w

Dombroski & BrownellFosterTaberDu PreyGupta

Wetting

Nonwetting


Effect on reducing interfacial tension

Source: Bardon & Longeron SPE 7609


wro

orw

kk

owM

==

Effect of mobility ratio in Sweep efficiency


Laboratory investigation Wettability, Relative permeability Swelling test, MMP, MME SWTT (Single Well Tracer Test) for Sor estimation Rock-Fluid compatibility test

Slim tube test

Rising Bubble method

Vanishing interfacial tension


MMP CorrelationsPure CO2

YearHolm and Josendal 1974 T MWC5+Cronquist 1977 T MWC5+ C1Yellin and Metcalfe 1980 TJohnson and Pollin 1981 T MWC7+Glaso 1985 T MWC7+ C2-C6Alston 1985 T C1N2 C2-C4,CO2Yuan et al. 2004 T MWC7+ C2-C6Shokir 2007 T MWC5+ C1N2 C2-C4,H2S,CO2

CO2 with ImpuritiesYear

Johnson and Pollin 1981 Gas compositionSebastian et al 1985 Gas compositionYuan et al. 2004 T MWC7+ C2-C6 Gas compositionShokir 2007 T MWC7+ C2-C6 Gas composition

N2 and lean gas YearFiroozabadi and Aziz 1986 T MWC7+ C2-C5

Hydrocarbon gas YearKuo 1985 T MWC5+

Parameters

Parameters

Gas composition

Parameters

Parameters

Estimation based on EOS calculations (T, compositions oil and gas).


Shokir method

Linear regression MethodsAlternating Conditional Expectation (ACE) Algorithms

JPSE, 58 (2007) 173-185


0 2000 4000 6000X

-15100

-15000

-14900

-14800

-14700

-14600

-14500

-14400

-14300

-14200

-14100

E

L

E

V

AQS0.550.50.450.40.350.30.250.20.15

Run: wf-5sowsWaterflood (5-spot, original well spacing)Model 2 (24 Layer 3D)

WCE

WLWWater SaturationGrid Plane j=6

WRW

t = yr 2003.55 yrs Waterflooding

API = 16o

API = 8o

API = 4o

j=1

j=6

j=1k=12

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Y

AQS0.550.50.450.40.350.30.250.20.15

Run: wf-5sowsWaterflood (5-spot, original well spacing)Model 2 (24 Layer 3D)

WLW

Water Saturation

WRW

t = yr 2003.55 yrs Waterflooding

WCEGrid Plane K=12

J=1

Pilot project design

Reservoir parametersDepth 4421 mThickness 213 mPorosity 8 - 12 %Permeability 10-150 mDOil Gravity 26 APITemperature 146 CInitial pressure 791 BARBubble point pressure 267 BARMMP 499 BARRes. Pressure 506 BAR


Cross section study results

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030YEAR

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

O

i

l

R

e

c

o

v

e

r

y

(

f

r

a

c

t

i

o

n

O

O

I

P

w

i

t

h

A

P

I

>

8

o

)

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

5-spot-owsoriginal well spacing 5spt with infill

9-spot with infill

gas inj5-spt if9-spt if

5-spt ows wf

9-spt if wf

9-spt if wag

5-spt if wf

5-spt if wag

gas inj5-spt ows

5-spt ows wag

WaterfloodGas Injection1:1 WAG


r, ft

e

l

e

v

a

t

i

o

n

0 100 200 300 400 500

-14800

-14700

-14600

-14500

-14400

InjectWaterat10,400psi Initial60dayswaterinjection GasSaturation

31m 50m 75m 150mRUNwbprf360halfcycle

r, ft

e

l

e

v

a

t

i

o

n

0 100 200 300 400 500

-14800

-14700

-14600

-14500

-14400 AQSAT0.60.550.50.450.40.350.30.25

InjectWaterat10,400psi

Sw=Swi=.14

WaterSaturation31m 50m 75m 150m

.2cut-off

r,ft

e

l

e

v

a

t

i

o

n

0 100 200 300 400 500

-14800

-14700

-14600

-14500

-14400

PRESSURE900089008800870086008500840083008200810080007900780077007600750074007300720071007000


Pressure(psi)31m 50m 75m 150m

presentation/wbprf3-xs.lay

r,ft

e

l

e

v

a

t

i

o

n

0 100 200 300 400 500

-14800

-14700

-14600

-14500

-14400 HCSAT0.80.750.70.650.60.550.50.450.40.350.30.250.20.15


So=Sorw=.34 So=Soi=.86

OilSaturation31m 50m 75m 150m

Pilot test monitoring

InjectorProduction Profile Log (PLT)

Down Hole P and T measurements

Water chemical tracer

Gas Chemical tracer

Observation wellProduction Profile Log (PLT)

Down Hole P and T measurements

Saturation logs

Tracers

Fluorbenzoic acid (Water)

Perfluorcarbon Hydrocarbon (Gas)

WAG Pilot Project Design


Monitoring

The Weyburn Monitoring Project

3D- 3component and 3D-9 component geophysical survey

Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) from surface to horizontal well

Cross-well seismic between parallel

Horizontal wells

Single horizontal well seismic

Source: K. Brown et al, Role of Enhanced Oil Recovery in carbon Dioxide Sequestration the Weyburn Monitoring Project, a case Study


Novel EOR Technology

Integration of CO2 storage and EOR

Toe to heel air injection THAI (CAPRI)

Solvent Vapour Extraction (SVX)


Source: Gulraiz Khan, M.Sc. Dissertation 2009.




Source: DOE/NETL Feb 2008


THAI is a new combustion process

Toe to heel air injection (THAI) is a new method of extracting oil from heavy oil deposits which may have significant advantages over existing methods. The method was developed by Malcolm Greaves of the University of Bath and has been patented by Petrobank.


Solvent Vapour Extraction (SVX)

Source: Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC) JIVE Program

JIVE said: For every billion barrels of oil produced by SVX instead of SAGD:

85 millions tones of CO2 prevented form entering the atmosfere

400 millions barrels of fresh water saved

1.65 trillion cubit feet of natural gas not burned

Practical Applicationsand Novel EOR Methods Typical IOR/EOR Project WorkflowScreening criteria for EOR MethodsScreening for IOR/EOR methodsImportance of capillary number in defining EOREffect on reducing interfacial tensionEffect of mobility ratio in Sweep efficiency Laboratory investigationMMP CorrelationsShokir methodCross section study resultsMonitoringNovel EOR TechnologySolvent Vapour Extraction (SVX)

seismic

Documents

eor rate model

wag scenario

design parameters

screening criteria

eor parameter calibration

model calibration

eor projectscenario

co2 miscible flood