SPE 50645 Water-Alternating-Gas Flooding in Venezuela: Selection of Candidates Based on Screeninq Criteria of International Field Experiences

Manrique E.,-Calder6n G., SPE, Mayo L. And Stirpe M. T., SPE, PDVSA INTEVEP

*
Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the f 998 SPE European held in The Hsgue, The Netherlands, 2C-22 Ostober 1998. Petroleum Conference

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following revtew of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as prssemted, have not been revfewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correatiin by the author(s). lhe material, as presented, does not necessarily reflaat any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members Pepers prssented at SPE meetings am subject to publication retiew by Ediorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Elaatronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to repmduse in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 word% illustrsticms mey not be copied. Tne abstrast must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where end by whom the paper was prssented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 632836, Richardson, TX 75063-3636, U.S.A., fsx 01-972-952-9435.

injection pressures 2470 greater than reservoir pressures unless the formation is deeper than 8000 ft. Additionally, incremental oil recoveries reported by those projects are higher for lower viscosity ratios and do not depends on injected solvent slug sizes. Finally, the authors discuss how this screening was useful as a first look to identify the actual reservoir and facilities of different fields located at the Maracaibo Lake (e.g. B-6-X. 10 and VLE-305) and select them for closer investigation and planning WAG pilot projects or WAG Field Laboratories. Introduction

Abstract Water alternating gas (WAG) injection schemes have become an important strategy for improved oil recovery (IOR) technique around the world, and have been the focus of interest in recent years in Venezuela. This drainage strategy is mainly planned according to the major concerns in Western Venezuela oil fields: optimizing gas resources and improving oil recoveries in the region. As part of the support to identify those reservoirs that will be candidates to WAG flooding in this area of the country, an extensive review was carried out to describe the main reservoir management strategies implemented in WAG pilot, as well as large field projects in order to evaluate international field experiences, before expensive reservoir description, laboratory studies, economic evaluations and WAG pilot projects are carried out. This paper briefly describes part of this review and also shows some screening criteria for WAG floodings. Data from successful and unsuccessful worldwide projects have been analyzed obtaining relevant information about crude oil and reservoir properties as well as gas injection capacities, incremental oil recoveries, among others. All these data have been compiled and the results are presented graphically; the relationship between them is discussed and compared with data of some of the reservoirs proposed for WAG floods in Venezuela. It has been found that WAG projects must be initiated with Water alternating gas injection (WAG) is known as a method to control the gas fingering and improve vertical sweep efficiency. This recovery process has been applied successfully on several oil fields, specially in USA, Canada and more recently in Norway. Generally, field projects are based mainly on carbon dioxide or hydrocarbon gases injected at miscible conditions. However, some field experiences (e.g. Lick Creek, Kuparuk River, Brage and Gullfaks) have shown that WAG could be an efficient method for improving oil recovery at immiscible conditions with C02 and hydrocarbon gases [1-2]. WAG processes are commonly applied in gas floods to reduce the mobility, to improve the stability of the flood front, and subsequently to improve oil recovery. WAG has also been considered beneficial to IOR in reducing viscous fingering between the displacing gas and the oil phase and by reducing override effects caused by domination of viscous forces over gravity forces in highly heterogeneous reservoirs, as well as improved attic oil recovery in structurally complex reservoirs [1-4]. The use of WAG injection has become an important strategy in the operation and economic maintenance of gas flooded fields, satisfying gas market demands, reducing gas handling and improving oil recoveries. However, significant variations in the results could be obtained in WAG projects due to differences in reservoir geology and heterogeneity, gas handling, operational flexibility and surveillance of projects, among others. Thus, the present paper briefly describes the

161

ManriqueE., Calderdm G., Mayo L. And Stirpe M. T.

SPE 50648

most relevant considerations reported on several WAG field projects and some of the screening criteria obtained from those WAG floods, as well as how this information is used to evaluate planned WAG projects in Venezuelan oil reservoirs. Planning WAG Projects Generally, WAG large field applications are developed between 3 and 5 years after pilot projects have been initiated. In some cases, field pilot or expansion projects maybe depend on economic issues (e.g. oil prices), gas availability and if gas compression and recycling facilities are present or they are easy to install. Figure 1 shows the main steps of WAG projects since early stages of experimental and simulation studies to large field applications. The information presented in figure 1 was obtained from the review of 28 field projects from a total of 59 WAG applications reported in the literature [1]. Experimental and simulation studies

the use of chemical andlor radioactive tracers in both phases. Generally, the strategy used is the injection of different tracers or a combination of them in selected wells of the pilot area (e.g. Brage, Gullfaks, Means San Andres, Mitsue Gillwood and Snorre). The aim to inject gas and water tracers into injection wells is related to use breakthrough time, and tracer history in order to give a better production/injection understanding of the dynamic reservoir behavior and to support and upgrade reservoir models [1, 11, 12]. In most of the cases, all WAG injections began with pilot projects (e.g. Brage, Gullfaks, East Vacuum, Kuparuk River, and Little Creek). Based on the results obtainedj field expansions have been implemented. It is important to mention that few field projects (e.g. Caroline and Neches) have been reported as unsuccessful due to poor conformance or operational problem [2]. Optimization of large WAG field applications

Prior to initiating WAG pilot projects, considerable theoretical and laboratory investigation efforts had been expended. Generally, a physical model study of the WAG processes had been conducted as well as slims tube tests at reservoir conditions. Computer simulations of various operational schemes and alternate well patterns were also conducted. Based on the knowledge accumulated from these efforts, commonly the decisions are taken to field test the WAG process at pilot scale (e.g. Brage, Kuparuk River, Means San Andres, Prudhoe Bay, and Slaughter). However, operators may argued that pilot projects could delay field expansions and affect IOR potential (e.g. Jay Little Escambia) [1,5-10]. Regarding the numerical simulation studies, efficiencies and production mechanisms of WAG processes are evaluated using both two-dimensional (2D) cross sectional models, and 3D sector models. Two approaches have been widely used to study the process: black-oil and compositional simulations. However, streamtubes and tank models have been also considered (e.g. Mitsue Gillwood, Rangely Weber). Full field WAG performance predictions are fundamentally obtained from scale-up tools, since 3D simulations would be too CPU intensive. Thus, WAG predictions generally are based on refined elements from a history matched full field model [1]. Pilot project surveillance

Poor sweep efficiency and early gas breakthrough are the major concerns in processes involving WAG flooding. In that sense, several methods have been considered to improve the gas sweeps efficiency and thereby enhances the recovery of oil from the fields. Some of the reported field applications may include [l,2,11,13-18]:
q

It is widely accepted that comprehensive data acquisition programs are necessary for WAG management and pilot project interpretations. Common data acquisition methods used to monitoring WAG processes are by frequent separator testing, fluid composition analysis, productiotiinjection rates, pressures, injection surveys, measuring gas-oil ratios (GOR) and saturation logging. An important method for monitoring WAG processes is

Effective and economic use of gas considering pattern efficiency studies or WAG ratios per pattern. (e.g. East Vaccum, Slaughter - Mallet Unit, Prudhoe Bay, Rangely Weber). WAG tapering or progressive reduction of gas injection after gas breakthroughs (e.g. Slaughter, Kelly Snyder, Dollarhide, Rangely Weber). Reduction of gas production to improve the area sweep efficiency by conversions or realignment of selected patterns of the field (East Vaccum, Kelly Snyder). Implementation of down-dip and up-dip WAG injection schemes (e.g. Snorre, Lower Statfjord - Statfjord Field). Infill drilling strategies (Dollarhide, Jay Little Escambia, Kelly Snyder, Means San Andres, Mitsue Gillwood and Wasson Denver). Selective interval fracture stimulations on wells in which large contrast in permeability between reservoirs has been found (e.g. East Vaccum). GOR control methods based on foams, gels and/or polymer treatments (e.g. Rangely Weber and Snorre). Plugging or isolation of thief zones using foamed cements (e.g. Kelly Snyder) or special packing of wells, San Andres and Mitsue respectively (e.g. Means Gillwood).

WAG Screening Screening criteria have been reported for almost all improved oil recovery methods. Those screening criteria have

162

SPE 50645 Water-Alternating-GasFloodingin Venezuela

Selection of Candidates Based on Screening Criteria of International Field Experiences

been obtained defining ranges for some critical parameters of successful IOR projects around the world. Additionally, the proposed screening criteria are based on field results and oil recovery mechanisms [19-2 1]. Regarding the miscible and immiscible gas floodings (C02, Nz and hydrocarbon gases), several screening criteria have been described in the literature [20-22]. However, few studies has been aimed to describe WAG field experiences and propose some screening criteria based on field results, reservoir and crude oil characteristics. Main oil properties and reservoir characteristics for successful international WAG field experiences are given in Table 1. The table was compiled from 56 WAG field projects reported previously [1,2]. Figures 2 through 6 show scatterplots of the suggested technical criteria based on data available in the literature. Unfortunately, not all the field project has been described completely. In that sense, the number of projects might limit the proposed screening criteria for WAG floods reported in each variable. Additionally, in order to have a reference about the criterias presented relevant and successful projects (1: Jay LEC; 2: Prudhoe Bay; 3: Kuparuk River; 4: Rangely Weber; 5: Slaugther Estate) has been identified on each of the correlations. Regarding the suggested screening criteria for WAG floods, those are slightly more specific than the reported previously in the literature for miscible and immiscible gas injection projects [20,21 ]. As shown in figure 2, more than 50% of oil viscosities of WAG field projects are below 2 CP no matter the type of the injected solvent. This result is quite lower than from those reported for C02 flooding (< 10 cP) [20,21]. It seems that viscosity ratios for WAG projects are between 10 and 30, this interval looks narrower for projects based on C02. However, the reduced number of projects (19 of 56) might limit these results (Fig. 3). Looking at the recovery method before the WAG projects have been implemented [1,23], most of the fields were producing by waterflooding (Fig. 4). This trend aloud us to propose that reservoirs producing by water injection are recommended or good candidates for WAG flooding. However, WAG projects also could be initiated in resevoirs producing by primary recovery and producing by gas injection. As it has been reported previously for miscible and immiscible gasfloods [20,21], reservoir permeabilities are not critical parameters for that type of recovery processes. Permeabilities of some of the reviewed WAG projects present high permeability contrasts (e.g. Wilmington, Prudhoe Bay and Snorre) varying from 50 milidarcy (mD) up to 3 Darcies. However, figure 5 shows that a high number of successful WAG fields projects has been implemented in reservoirs with permeabilities below 100 mD, as well as net thickness below 100 ft based on the reported incremental oil recoveries by those projects. Successful WAG field projects in formations

with net thickness greater than 100 ft (e.g. Rangely Weber) generally present high dip angles. Finally, depths and temperatures of WAG field experiences are not critical parameters for screening purposes. However, it is important to mention that minimum miscibility pressures (MMP) requirements increase with temperature for miscible gas or WAG floods. The range of temperature of the WAG projects evaluated (26 of 56) is mostly between 100 and 200 F and reservoir depths are greater than 4000 ft (Fig. 6). Oil recovery and operational issues

To predict the performance of WAG field experiences, all projects which reported incremental of oil recoveries have been correlated with some fluid and reservoir properties, total volume of solvent and solvent slug size injected, respectively. The results are presented graphically (Figures 7 through 10); the relationship between them is discussed and compared with data of some of the reservoirs proposed for WAG floods in Venezuela. In order to correlate the incremental oil recoveries that could be obtained by a WAG flood, this variable was plotted against some of the operational issues or screening criteria identified in previous WAG field experiences. One of the most important variables in the economy of WAG floods is the total amount of injected solvent. Figure 7 shows that higher incremental oil recoveries (% OOIP) has been reported in projects injecting an amount of solvent between 30 to 40 % of the hydrocarbon pore volume (% HCPV) using slug sizes lower than 10 % and 5% of HCPV for miscible and immiscible WAG processes, respectively (Fig. 8). However this value can vary depending on the reservoir properties, volume of gas available, gas and oil prices and the total economy of the process, among others. Regarding the relationship between the incremental oil recoveries obtained by WAG injections with the viscosity ratio (Fig. 9), only few projects (12 of 56) reports both data. Therefore, in this case it is difficult to draw a useful correlation to recommend a specific viscosity ratio for a WAG project. Conversely, figure 10 shows that higher incremental oil recoveries by WAG projects can be obtained in formations with net thickness lower than 100 ft unless reservoirs with important dip angles such as Rangely Weber [1,2]. Some of the project characteristics and operational issues for the international WAG field experiences reviewed are given in Table 2. Regarding the operational issues evaluated for 20 of the total of WAG projects (56), we plot the reservoir pressures against injection pressures, as shown in figure 11, obtaining a good linear correlation for both miscible and immiscible WAG ftoods. From this plot, it seems that immiscible projects need at least an injection pressure over the 40 Y. of the reservoir pressures, and the requirements for miscible WAG floods over 20%. Tubing and casing materials,

163

Manrique E., Calder6n G., Mayo L. And Stirpe M. T.

SPE 50646

corrosion treatments, as well as well completions for injectors and producers have been detailed described in previous studies [24]. Finally, Table 3 shows the comparison of the proposed screening criteria for 3 of the reservoirs candidates to implement WAG projects in Venezuela. Actually, those reservoirs are under experimental, reservoir characterization and preliminary numerical simulation studies as shown in figure 1. Conclusions It is important to. mention that a screening guide such as the obtained can encourage an engineer when a given reservoir and crude oil meet the stated criteria. However, it reservoirs and crude oils which do not meet those screening criteria it does not necessarily mean that the process cannot be successfully carried out. Conversely, if a given reservoir meet the criteria, it is not necessarily true that a WAG flood would be successful, even though it might be technically feasible. Finally, the suggested screening criteria are useful for surveys of an important number of fields candidate to WAG floods in Venezuela without economic evaluation or time consuming reservoir description and simulation studies. Additionally, the authors believe that this type of analysis might contribute to the planning and development of future WAG injection projects in Venezuela, based on previous field experiences. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank PDVSA E & P and PDVSA INTEVEP for permission to publish this paper. Critical review by Gustavo Gedler, PDVSA INTEVEP, is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also wish to thank Arne Skauge, Norsk Hydro ASA, and all the authors of paper SPE 39883 for share the information of their Review of WAG Field Experiences. References

1.

2.

3. 4.

Manrique, Eduardo, Main Reservoir Management Strategies for WAG Projects, a Field Cases Review. Visi6n Tecno16gica Vol. 5 No 1, Intevep, S. A., Los Teques, 1997 Christensen, J. R., Stenby, E. H., Skauge, A, Review of WAG Field Experience. Paper SPE 39883, presented at the 1998 SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico, Villahermose, March 3-5. Tollefsen, Svein, Offshore WAGs - Multipurpose Enhanced Oil Recovery for the Future. JPT, March 1996. Caudle, B.H., Dyes A.B., Improving Miscible Displacement by Gas-Water Injection. Trans AIME, 213, 281, 1985.

Champion, J. H., Shelden J. B., An Immiscible WAG Injection Project in the Kuparuk River Unit, Paper SPE 28602, presented at the 69ti Annual Technical Conferences and Exhibition, New Orleans, 1994. 6. Reinhold, E.W., Enger, S. R., Ma, T.D., Renke, S.M, Early Performance and Evaluation of the Kuparuk River Hydrocarbon Miscible Flood, Paper SPE 24930, presented at the 67ti Annual Technical Conferences and Exhibition, Washington, D. C., 1992. 7. Christian, L.D., Nelson, W.C., Metz, B.E., Rupp, K.A., Zimmerman, K.A. Design Styler, J.W., and Implementation of a Miscible Water-Alternating-Gas Flood at Prudhoe Bay. Paper SPE 13272, presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conferences and Exhibition, Houston, Sept 16-19. 8. Williamson, A. S., Gondouin, M., Pavias, E. J., Olson, J. E., Chnell, L.W., Bowen, R. R., The Planning of a LargeScale Miscible Flood at Prudhoe Bay, JPT October 1986. 9. Christian, L. D., Shirer, J. A., Kimbel, E.L., Blackwell, Project for R.J., Planning a Tertiary Oil-Recovery Jay/LEC Fields Unit, JPT August 1981 10. Langston, E.P., Shirer, J. A., Performance of Jay/LEC Fields Unit under Mature Waterflood and Early Tertiary Operations. Paper SPE 11986, presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conferences and Exhibition, San Francisco, Ott 5-8. 11. Omoregie, Z.S., Jackson , G.R. Early Performance of a large Hydrocarbon Miscible Flood at the Mitsue Field, Alberta. Paper SPE 16718, presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conferences and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept 27-30. 12. Stenmark, H., Andfossen, P.O. Snorre WAG pilot- a case study, 8th European IOR, Vienna,. Austria, 1996. 13. Harpoon, K.J., Whaleback, L. D., East Vacuum Grayburg San Andres Unit (EVGSAU) COZ Flood Ten-Year Performance Review: Evolution of a Reservoir Management Strategy and Results of WAG Optimization. Paper SPE 36710, presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Ott 6-9. 14. Sharma, A. K., Clements, L.E. From Simulator To Field Management: Optimum WAG Application in a West Texas COZ flood- a Case History. Paper SPE 36711, presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Ott 6-9. 15. Colllings, R. C., Hild, G. P., Abidi, H. R., Pattern Modification by Injection-Well Shut-In: A Combined Cost Reduction and Sweep-Improvement Effort Paper SPE 30730, presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conferences and Exhibition, Dallas, Ott 22-25. 16. Wackowski, R. K., Results of the Injection Well Polymer Gel Treatment Program at the Rangely Weber Sand Unit. Paper SPE 39612, presented at the 1998 SPE Syposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 19-22.

5.

164

SPE 50645

Water-Alternating-Gas

Flooding in Venezuela: Selection of Candidates Based on Screening Criteria of International Field Experiences

Johnson, D., HiId, G.P., Hughes, T.L., 17. Friedmann, Wilson, A., Davies, S. N., Large Volume Foam Gel Treatments to Improve Conformance of the Rangely COZ Flood. Paper SPE 39649, presented at the 1998 SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 1922. 18. Stenmark, H., Snadvik, A. Snorre Up-Dip WAG Injection. 6ti Conference on Reservoir Management; Stavanger, Norway, November 1996. 19. Bu, T., Soreide, I., Kydland., IOR Screening: What Went Wrong? ., 7ti European IOR Symposium, Moscow, Russia, October 1993. 20. Taber, J. J., Martin, F. D., Seright., R. S., EOR Screening Criteria Revisted- Part 1: Introduction To Screening Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects. Paper SPE 35385, presented at the 1996 SPE Syposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April. 21-24. 21. Taber, J.J., Martin, F. D., Seright., R. S., EOR Screening Criteria Revisted- Part 2: Applications and of Oil Prices. Paper SPE 39234, presented at the 1996 SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April. 21-24. 22. Robl, F. W., Emanuel, A. S., Van Meter, O.E. Jr. The 1984 National Petroleum Council Estimate of Potential of EOR for Miscible Processes, JPT August 1986 23. Moritis, G., New Technology, Improved Economics Boost EOR Hopes (EOR Survey and Analysis). Oil and Gas Journal - OGJ Special, 39-51, April 1996. 24. Mayo, L., Manrique, E. Well Completions and Surface Facilities Used in International WAG Projects (In Spanish). PDVSA INTEVEP Internal Report (SIT00166,98). April 1998.

165

Manrique E., Calderon G., Mayo L. And Stirpe M. T.

SPE 50646

TABLE 1. Suggested Criteria for Water Alternating Gas Projects. Fluid properties: <2 (31/56) Oil viscosity (cP) 30-45 (31/56) Gravity (API) 10-30 (19/56) Viscosity ratio Reservoir characteristics / properties: Waterflooding prefemed (32/56) Previous production method Not critical Temperature (F) Not critical Depth (ft) c 100 unless dipping (30/56) Net thickness (ft) <100 (30/56) Average permeability (mD) Not critical Type of formation a = numberof WAG projectsevaluated/Total of WAG projects.

TABLE 2. Main Project Characteristics Project characteristics: Total solvent injected (% HCPV) Solvent slug size (% HCVP) WAG ratio Incremental recovery (% 00IP) Operational issues: Injection pressure / Reservoir pressure (%) Tubing material Casing material Anticorrosion treatment

and Operational Issues of International

WAG Floods.

30-40 (20/56) Miscible process: c 10 (20/56) Immiscible process: <5 (3/56)a Variable (Most common 1:1 ) Miscible process: S 20 (23/56) Immiscible process: S 10 (4/56) Miscible process: 22 (17/56)= Immiscible process: 42 (4/56) J-55 / N-80 (14/56.) N-80 (14/56) Commercial inhibitors (14/56)

TABLE 3. Main Project Characteristics

and Operational B-6-X.10

Issues of Venezuelan VLE-305 0.605__ 35 30 Water floding 236 12500 100 490 Sandstone 40 5 1:1 12 HC

Planned WAG Projects El Furrial 0.415 26 17 Water floding 290 14500 290 (dip angle 13) 100 Sandstone 40 7 1:1 13 HC

Fluid properties: Oil viscosity (cP) 2.4 Gravity (API) 24 Viscosity ratio 70 (gas HC)(l) Reservoir characteristics I properties: Previous production method Water floding Temperature (F) 180 Depth (ft) 5500 Net thickness (ft) 150 (Dip angle 3) Average permeability (mD) 200 Type of formation Sandstone Project Characteristics: Total solvent injected (% HCPV) 30 Solvent slug size (% HCVP) 6 WAG ratio 1:1 Incremental recovery (% 001P)(2) 9 (gas HC) Injected solvent HCIC02 (1) Solvent to be iniected has not been decided. (2) Valuesobtainedby preliminary numericalsimulations.

166

SPE 506~5

Water-Alternating-Gas

Flooding in Venezuela

Selection of Candidates Based on Screening Criteria of International Field Experiences

Reservoirs by primary or secondary (Gas or Water) production

Pilot projects could delay field expansions and affect IOR potential (e.g. Jay LEC)

Reservoir management strategies based on historic information from the field supported with experimental and simulation studies

v
Field expansions without a complete interpretation of pilot projects (e.g. Prudhoe Bay)

II

VLE-305 Field El Furrial Field B-6-X.1 O Field

2-3 years

r-----i onitongthepr
comprehensive data acquisition programs and tracer m]ectlons
I I
P 1

WAG pilot projects

3-5 years

. * Large field scale WAG applications I

Successful

projects

Project performance, profitability and evaluation of potential field expansions I

Unsuccessful projects

b
&

Surveillance of projects

Few cases (New drainage strategies)

Fig. 1, From pilot projects to field expansions:

Planning, surveillance,

evaluation and management

of international

WAG projects

167

Manrique E., Calderon G., Mayo L. And Stirpe M. T.

SPE 50645

55 50

..

300 250-

AI
4 m nQ 0 D ,n, I 040 E

45 2001501oo500 0,0 0

05

30 25 20

o co, ~ HC
AN,

1O,bo

20,bo

30,bo

40, o

50 )0

Viscosity Ratio

Fig. 2. API vs. Viscosity (3 1/56 projects)

Fig. 3. Temperature
300

vs. Viscosity Ratio ( 19/56 projects) .

Gas Flooding

250
* _ * {} ,

+4

4D

+ * o I
300 Permeability

0
Water Flooding 80%

~++

100

I
200

I
400

4
500

I
600

I
700 6(

(mD)

Fig. 4. Previous Recovery Methods (32/56 projects)

300 *I

Fig., 5. Net Thickness vs. Permeability

(30/56 projects)

1
o
5

0 o

o C02

r
50

HC

IAN,

I
o

4000

8000

I
12000

16000

10

Depth (ft) Fig. 6. Temperature vs. Depth (26/56 projects)

20 30 40 50 60 70 Total solvent injected (%HCPV)

Fig. 7. Recovery vs. Total solvent injected (20/56 projects)

168

SPE 50645

Water-Alternating-Gaa

Flooding in Venezuela

Selection of Candidates Based on Screening Criteria of International Field Experiences

25 0 Mist Immisc

0 05
t 0

f.OOOo ?OO ,J
0

10

20

30

40

10

20 Viscosity Ratio

30

40

50

Solvent Slug Size (%HCPV)

Fig. 8. Recovery vs. Solvent Slug Size (19/56 projects)

50 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 i

Fig. 9. Recovery vs. Viscosity Ratio (12/56 projects)

Io

Mist

1
R&(_@656

,0

+ : @ooo 000
0

4000

805 00 0:1
50 q 100

3000

80 00
150
(ft)

2000 1000 0 250 o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 q

0 q
Reservoir

Mist
Immisc

200

6000

7000

Net Thickness

Pressure (psi)

Fig. 10. Recovery vs. Net Thickness (27/56 projects)

Fig. 11. Injection Pressure vs. Reservoir Pressure

(21/56 projects)

169