Reservoir Engineering II

Waterflooding Gas Reservoir

January, 2014

Table of contents

List of tables..3 List of figures...........................4 Abstract..5 Introduction..... .5 1- Reservoir properties considering in waterflooding. ..6 2-Waterflooding gas reservoirs10 2.1 Comparison of water injection in gas reservoirs to oil reservoirs.....12 2.2 Injection Volumes and rates..12 2.3 Timing a waterflood project..14 2.4 Case study...16 2.5 Investigation of waterflooding with simulation (Eclipes) .17 Conclusion 25 References..26

List of Tables
Table 1: Oil recovery range for driving mechanism10 Table 2: Waterflood simulation model properties...16

List of Figures
Figure 1: Injection rate necessary to maintain reservoir pressure.13 Figure 2: Waterflood simulation model diagram...16 Figure 3: Injection rates for waterfloods started in years 4 and 15..19 Figure 4: Volume injected for waterfloods in years 4 and 15...20 Figure 5: Reservoir life for waterfloods started in years 4 and 5..21 Figure 6: Injection rates to obtain recovery wit 19 year teservoir22 Figure 7: Relationship between recovery factor and volume injected for year 423 Figure 8: Relationship between recovery factor and volume injected for year 15..24

Abstract
The second oil recovery takes place when natural drive energy is too small or depleted for economic oil recovery. Essential energy must be added to the reservoir to allow additional oil recovery that additional energy is generally in the form of Gas injection or Water flooding. The objective of secondary recovery is to preserve reservoir pressure and to shift hydrocarbons toward the wellbore. The secondary oil recovery methods are gas injection and water flooding. Normally water is injected into the aquifer and gas is injected into the gas cap.

1. Introduction
In water flooding projects, water flooding can be studied either by classic material balance methods or by sophisticated reservoir simulation programs. Although reservoir simulation is almost always accurate, it requirs loads of variables and data to be inserted and takes up much time to run models and analyze them. On another perspective, simulation cannot be available to some operators due to its high cost. On the other hand, material balance methods are fast and simple but lack advantage like prediction of gas production rates and also lack the evaluation of important factors as compression that can greatly help in the estimation of the NPV of the reserves. Simulation studies were conducted by using Eclipse, to examine recovery optimization by waterflooding. From water flooding studies it was concluded that the injection rate is essential to attain a given recovery in a amount of time with a restricted injected volume goes up over time and that starting water injection in the reservoir`s life can

have a various advantages to performing a waterflood close abandonment .

1. Reservoir properties considering in Water Flooding. Reservoir Geometry

Reservoir geometry is considered one of the most important factors that we must detect before water flooding because determining the geometry quite well will make you able to know accurately the location and the number of wells if we are in onshore fields, but if in offshore fields, the reservoir geometry will make us determine the location and the number of the platforms needed in this field. Analyzing the reservoir performance and make an accurate analysis of the reservoir geometry will make you know if we can use the water flooding as supplying the natural drive mechanism but if the primary drive mechanism is and active water drive so the project of the water flooding in this case will be not necessary . (Ahmed, 2010)

Reservoir Depth
Determining the reservoir depth is considered an essential factor that affects the water flooding projects. As the depth of the reservoir increases we must increase the injection pressure to reach to our goal without reaching to the fracture pressure and as also the depth increases it affects the economic and technical issues and increase the operating costs. So in very deep wells and shallow reservoirs the injection pressure increases of the water flooding project. In water flooding job, there is a critical pressure that we must know it is equal to 1psi/ft of depth and this means that if we exceed this limit we can create fractures in the reservoir and this will need to channeling and cause many problems during production. We must work on an operational pressure gradient which is 0.75 psi/ft to provide us with a sufficient safety and to preclude pressure parting. (Ahmed, 2010)

Fluid Properties

The physical properties of the reservoir fluids are very important in a water flooding job. The viscosity of the crude oil is considered the most important in water flooding because it affects the degree of success and the failure of the water flooding project. The oil viscosity is used to determine the mobility ratio and from this we can control the sweep efficiency. (Ahmed, 2010)

Fluid Saturation
The saturations of the fluids inside the reservoir are an important factor to consider knowing how successful water flooding will be. The higher the oil saturation before the water flooding job the higher the oil recovery efficiency that will be in the reservoir. (Ahmed, 2010)

Lithology and Rock Properties

Thomas et al. (1989) said that the lithology of the reservoir affects the efficiency of the water injection in a particular reservoir, the rock properties that indicates the degree of success of water flooding project are: A) Porosity b) Permeability c) Clay content d) Net thickness

In the complicated reservoirs, there are some portions of the total porosity such as the fracture porosity has a good effect on water injection jobs because the fracture porosity will have an essential effect on the permeability of this region which can make the water flooding process. In this case the water flooding job will have a low effect on the matrix porosity which could be crystalline or granular in shape.
7

Despite that the truth detects that the clay minerals found in some sands may clog the pores by swelling when the water flooding technique is used. In very tight reservoirs which mean that reservoirs with very low permeability it is suffered from water injection problems during secondary recovery as we cannot reach to the required water injection rate or pressure. There is a relationship which describes what we say:

Where

= water-injection pressure

= water-injection rate h = net thickness k = absolute permeability The above relationship indicates that to reach to a desired daily injection rate of iw in a tight or thin reservoir, the required injection pressure might exceed the formation fracture pressure. (Ahmed, 2010)

Reservoir Uniformity and Pay Continuity

The reservoir uniformity is considered one of the major physical criteria needed for successful water flooding project. For example if the formation contains a stratum of low thickness and very high permeability, a rapid channeling and by passing will occur. Unless the engineers can locate the zone that contains this type of formation and shut it off, thus the producing water oil ratios will be too high to make the water flooding jobs more profitable and more successful. Moreover, as the depletion pressure decreases in the zones that have high permeability will aggravate the water flooding tendency because of the high differences in the permeability. Furthermore, these zones will have low residual oil saturations than that of the other zones found in the same reservoir, so the water flooding project will result in decreasing the oil recovery than the other layers. The areal continuity in the pay zones is very suitable for water flooding projects; isolated lenses can be used effectively depleted by a single
8

well completion, and to make a successful water flooding project the injector and the producer must be at the same lens. A good study for the reservoir anisotropy must take place and determine the fracture pressure before

determining a proper well planning for suitable water flooding project and for the flood orientation. (Ahmed, 2010) .

Primary Reservoir-Driving Mechanisms

The oil is produced from the reservoir by primary and secondary and tertiary drive mechanism:

1- Rock and liquid expansion. 2-Solution gas drive. 3-Gas-cap drive. 4-Water drive. 5-Gravity drainage drive. 6-Combination drive. The oil recovery by any of the above driving mechanisms is called primary recovery. The term refers to the production of hydrocarbons from a reservoir by the natural energy of the reservoir such as rock and liquid expansion. The primary drive mechanism and anticipated ultimate oil recovery should be

considered when reviewing possible waterflood prospects. The approximate oil recovery range is tabulated below for various driving mechanisms. These

calculations are approximate and, therefore, the recoverable oil found in this table may be out of these ranges according to the condition found in the reservoir.(Ahmed, 2010)

Driving Mechanism Rock and liquid expansion Solution gap Gas Cap Water drive Gravity drainage Combination drive

Oil Recovery range % 3-7 5-30 20-40 35-75 <80 30-60

Table 1: Oil recovery range for driving mechanism

2. WaterFlooding Gas Reservoirs 2.1 Comparison of water injection in gas reservoirs to oil reservoirs
Almost engineers are cognizant of using pressure maintenance and also water flooding in oil reservoirs. Waterflooding is considered a secondary oil recovery method that utilizes water injection in order to displace residual mobile oil to production wells. Pressure maintenance is utilized to keep oil reservoirs above the bubble point, the advantages of pressure maintenance are that it tolerates production rates and keeps producing gas-oil ratio down; moreover, it reduces the essential for artificial lift. Though water injection is the mechanism of pressure maintenance and water flooding, the two practices possess different objectives. Enhanced oil recovery methods in gas reservoirs must be achieved before depletion, however, pressure maintenance and water flooding can still be utilized to raise gas recovery. In a gas reservoir, water flooding and pressure maintenance are too difficult to distinguish. Both volumetric sweep efficiency and pressure must be considered while designing injection of water project. Reservoir pressure essential be reserved high enough to transfer a rate of economic production while water sweeping the fraction of the reservoir that is dismissible. (Walker, 2005)

10

The two prime fluid characteristics which distinguish the study of gas recovery from oil recovery are compressibility and mobility. When an oil pore space is saturated is swept by water and all of the mobile oil is displaced. The oil that is left behind is a residual saturation that won't flow. Gas included in a residual saturation, it will extend if the pressure of reservoir is dropped. (Walker, 2005) Theoretically, the ideal gas law shows us that as the pressure is reduced by half therefore the gas volume will be doubled. Critical gas saturation happens once gas enlarges enough to make a continuous stage. If Critical saturation is reached, gas will flow more than the liquid phase. This action is well authenticated in oil reservoirs and can else happen in a gas zone that has been swept via water. (Walker, 2005)

There is an experiment where 2 sandstone cores were flooded by water and subsequently depressurized. The permeability of cores is 200 and 1500md and residual gas saturations is 0.415 and 0.35 respectively. Gamma neutron reaction measurements showed that during gas saturations blow down had to increase with 0.04 and 0.14 above in the residual amounts in the cores of 200 and 1500 md for gas to become movable again. (Fishlock, 1986) In a same experiment, it was observed that for the three cores utilized the gas saturation had to increase from residual values from 0.3 to 0.4 for gas to remobilize. The permeability of cores were 1445, 1792 and 1915 md.. The residual gas saturations were resolved by history matching the experiments by rather than direct measurement. (Firoozabadi, 1987) Fishlock. The reasoning for gas mobilization delaying is that the permeability of gas submit to hysterias during blow down and the relative permeability to gas after absorption is not like as it was during primary drainage. (Fishlock, 1986) Gas permeability that was measured by Fishlock at gas saturation 0.58 to be 0.001. In spite of low relative permeability, the gas phase become mobile the
11

It seems to be fairly nearly agreement with the data collected by

fractional flow of gas increased quickly with more increase in gas saturation. It was deduced that the relative permeability to water decreased as a consequence of gas expansion and when relative permeability of both are low the viscosity ratio encourages gas flow. Moreover, the blows down results were dependent on rock and the magnitude of the difference between mobilization saturations and residual may not be typical of reservoir rocks. (Walker, 2005) Experimental data specifies that there is a difference between remobilization and residual saturations. (Fishlock, 1986), (Firoozabadi, 1987). It is significant to notice that there is no field evidence to confirm these observations. (Ancell, 1990) Moreover, gas saturation is essential to increase 5-15% to become mobile, unless both trapping pressure and residual saturation are low, remobilization have to be possible Then, if trapping pressure and residual saturation are low, primary recovery

shall be high and remobilization may not be essential.

2.2 Injection Volumes and Rates

At a gas well particularly at low reservoir pressure, Water breakthrough might cause the well to load up or else water out completely. Injecting water until breakthrough shouldn`t decrease the recovery, if the reservoir is just over the abandonment pressure Though, if the average pressure is higher than abandonment pressure injection should be reduced before the expected breakthrough. It attitudes to reason that there is some maximum water volume , that can be injected into group of wells or a given well

without affecting the adjacent producers. Near abandonment , should be nearly equal to the displaceable pore volume of

a circular injection manner whose radius equivalent to the distance between the injector and producer. During injection of water, the displacement should be closely piston like due to the very favorable mobility ratio. (Agarwal, 1965) If injection is stopped, some factors as gas expansion and gravity segregation leads water to acclimate (sag) and laterally spread. This phenomenon should be considered when determining , at high reservoir pressures.
12

Previous studies have examined waterflooding gas reservoirs at or close abandonment. The common problem with waiting to start injection close abandonment is that the gas compressibility is almost as high as it can obtain. The minimum injection rate that needed to sustain reservoir pressure is . Figure 1 is a graph of minimum

injection rate verses pressure for various gas production rates. The production rates are low; when reservoir pressure falls below 1000 psia the minimum injection rate starts to increase drastically. Figure1 clarifies how is inversely proportional to reservoir

pressure. As in the figure, a production rate of 500 MSCFD reservoir pressure has dropped from 3,000 to 1000 psia and (Walker, 2005) has increased from 500 to 1500 BPD.

The major advantage of starting injection before abandonment is that the reservoir pressure does not should be accurately maintained. There is no instant threat of falling under the abandonment pressure if the injection rate is not achieved. In the Early life of the reservoir, is reached. If is the rate required to inject is a constant value then before the abandonment pressure increases along the life of the reservoir

and gets its maximum value at abandonment.

13

Figure 1:

2.3 Timing a waterflood project

All preceding water flooding studies and field projects have included gas reservoirs close abandonment. The most well authenticated waterflooding of a gas reservoir located in st. Martin Parish, Louisiana in the D-1 reservoir of the Duck Lake Field. (Cason, 1983). The original gas in place of D-l reservoir was valued to be 681 by using a .

material balance. The initial formation volume factor was estimated to be 456 The volume of water equal to 130

injected Duck lake reservoir. This , the author determined with material increase in production.

identical to an average injection rate 33,000 balance that water injection was accountable for

14

The incremental recovery is only 3.6% of gas; however income of million dollars over years.

it signifies an

While performing the water flooding project at the early stages of the primary depletion can be successful in the field, it can also be unattractive, theoretically speaking, according to the amounts of water injected and the economics arising from that. Injection wells can be drilled or already existing production wells can be converted into injectors in order to begin the water flooding project. Some studies indicate that water flooding should start early so that minimum injection pressures can be achieved. Then, the number and injectivity of obtainable wells can determine the possible beginning time for a project. An abandonment waterflood ends when

breakthrough has occurred at all of production wells. Starting injection of water in early life of the reservoir has various benefits over an abandonment waterflood. But, there is much more doubt included in the design.

15

2.4 Case Study

Table 2: Water flood simulation model properties.

16

Figure 2

2.5 Investigation of waterflooding with simulation (Eclipse)

To examine the theory and practice of waterflooding gas reservoirs, a reservoir simulation was done with Eclipse, The waterflood simulation model properties and waterflood simulation model diagram are shown in table1 and figure2 respectively. The main objective of this study was to examine the difference between early water injecting in the life of reservoir and waiting till it is close abandonment. Though, the effects of some factors as starting time, injection rate, and volume injected on recovery and production life were also investigated.

The reservoir was first produced to abandonment in order to define reservoir life and the base recovery. As soon as the base production life was determined an abandonment waterflood was started at the last time phase. Water injection was persistent till the end
17

of the simulation runs for the abandonment flood, due to stopping injection resulted in the production well to fall under the economic limit. The abandonment waterflood stop injection at any time caused in recovery not being . It appears that close

abandonment waterflooding a gas reservoir is much as waterflooding an oil reservoir. The drive energy is provided with the injected water and only the gas that is will be produced. The maximum recovery might only be completed by stopping the injection before production discontinued at every time in the reservoir life. Once injection before abandonment, the pressure was higher in the swept zone reservoir. than the remnant of the

Basically, the gases that are trapped had stored up possible energy much as a spring. Once stopping the injection, this energy was slowly released in the way of expansion that resulted in increase the production. Usage this stored energy

continuously lead to higher recovery and less injected water than continuing the waterflooding until the production stopped. (Walker, 2005) So as to determine these dissimilar behaviors lets compare the action of a waterflood in the fourth year of production with the abandonment flood. As shown in figures 3 through 5 comparisons between the recovery factor, the injected volume, moreover production life of the two water-floods respectively. An injection rate is greater than 3,000 is necessary to produce any additional recovery at

abandonment while nearly any injection rate can increase recovery

in the

fourth year. In the field, a minimum injection rate is a serious operational problem. If wells lost injectivity near abandonment, the reservoir would need to be shut in while the work should be continued over the affected wells otherwise the entire project could be in risk.

With almost the same volume of injected water, an injection rate of 3,500 BPD leads to identical recoveries for both cases. However, at this rate the production life of the abandonment flood is 10 years longer. Besides, this injection rate is almost near the
18

minimum requirement. An extra 2% of recovery over pre-abandonment floods can be achieved by injection rates higher than 5,000 for the abandonment flood. The

more efficient process is to allow occurrence of gas expansion before sweeping the reservoir than trapping the gas then let it to expand. Yet, it requires an additional 10-15 of water injection and 7-10 years of production. Because of complex relations between starting time, injection rate, recovery and time of the project. The engineer must have a decision how starting time, injection rate, and producing life impact the value of the project. It is valuable to hold some of the values constant to understand them better. A sequence of simulation runs began injection in different years, and for each run 20 was injected before year 14. The rate of injection was regulated

until the end of all of the runs during year 19 and the recoveries were almost equivalent to what could be achieved. Figure 6 shows the injection rates and recovery factors. From year 2 to year 10 the desired injection rate tripled while the recovery went down by 0.5% and the life of the project increased by half a year.

The required injection rate that is to get a given recovery factor in a given amount of time, with a limited injection volume rises significantly over time. A high injection rate will be essential to avoid having to accept less recovery or a longer production life.

As shown in figure 7, there was a strong linear connection between recovery factor and the volume of injected water when the waterflood was began in year 4, this behavior was idealistic up to year 10. In figure 8, this relation became quadratic in nature close abandonment. These two graphs indicate that the factor which is most directly related to recovery is the amount of water injected. However, in order to reach this optimal recovery, a waterflood must have an associated blow down phase before abandonment.

For most of the reservoir life, the ideal injection volume is more or less constant.

As

shown in Figures 4 and 7 the ideal volume for the simulation model was about 20 . At any point in time there is a minimum rate that will hit injected target

with enough time to blow down before production stopped. (Walker, 2005)
19

Figure 3:

20

Figure 4:

21

Figure 5:

22

Figure 6:

23

Figure 7:

24

Figure 8:

Conclusion
Simulation studies were conducted by using Eclipse, to investigate optimization of recovery by waterflooding. From waterflooding studies it was concluded that the injection rate is essential to attain a given recovery factor in a given amount of time with a limited injected volume goes up over time and that early in the life of a reservoir starting water injection can have many advantages to carrying out a waterflood near abandonment. Water rates, volumes and starting/stopping times can attain same

recoveries, but affect the project life and then NPV differently. The main goal of early injection in a reservoirs life is pressure maintenance rather than displacement. There are many production scenarios when injection is started early. Various options can achieve same recovery results even though the volumes, injection rates and beginning times are different.

25

References
Agarwal, R. A.-H. (1965). The Importance of Water Influx in Gas Reservoirs. SPE 1244 presented at SPE Annual Fall Meeting. Denver. Ahmed, T. (2010). Principles of waterflooding. In T. Ahmed, Reservoir Engineering Hand Book (Fourth Edition ed.). Ancell, K. F. (1990). Remobilization of Natural Gas Trapped by Encroaching Water. SPE 20753 presented at the 65th Annual SPE Technical. New Orleans. Cason, L. D. (1983). Waterflooding Increases Gas Recovery. SPE 12041 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference. San Francisco. Firoozabadi, A. O.-R. (1987). Residual Gas Saturation in Water-Drive Gas Reservoirs. SPE 16355 presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting . Ventura. Fishlock, T. S. (1986). Experimental Studies on the Waterflood Residual Gas Saturation and its Production by Blowdown. the 61st Annual SPE Technical Conference . New Orleans. Walker, T. (2005). ENHANCED GAS RECOVERY USING PRESSURE AND

DISPLACEMENT.

26