Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SPE
=-tuorF%i-unmmErms
SPE 19656
Reser~oir Description and Performance Analvsis of a Mature
Miscible Flood in Rainbow Field, Canada
D,E. Bilozir
and P,M, Frydl,MobilGilCanada
r
A
.4BsIlUI
MUU!&LM
289
r
RESERVOIRDESCRIPTIONAND PERFORMANCEANALYSIS OF
sp~ 19656 9
A NATURE MISCIBLE FLOOD IN RAINBOW FIELD, CANADA
2
.
fair preservatlo~h~f sedimentary ;~[i$ures and
w?.:abnormally high. In addition, the dctual oil
bioclasts on
masoscopic
productionfrom the pool had typical1y bem about 70
allowed
recognitim of numerous sedimentaryfacleq and.the
the rate originally predicted (Fi me
development of a depositional model of,,the AA
e
Based on the ori:,inaloil-in-p7aCe
fffn!2%)
2)~$
buildup.
estimate of i5 9 $106 m3 and an estimated recovery
of 12.5 x 10~ m , the pool had only produced
The transformationof the depositionalmodel into n
one-half of its expected recovery, and yet there
reservgir model inv~lved several steps. Differmt
were indications that the remaining ~11 bank was
facies were characterizedby a range of porosityand
quite thin.
permeability values, types of porosity, and
variations in continuity of pc?ous units. The
The integration of geological and engineering
facies were then grouped into larger units based on
analy;esprovidedthe opportunityto:
the environment of deposition.. Because each of
. Redefine the reservoir, the associated
these larger units was dominated by one or two
volumetric and identify bypassed oil in
sedimentary facies, it was related to a set of
the solvent-sweptzone.
reservoir propertiesand provided the final step to
2. Analyze the basic data provided by
translate the depositional model into a reservoir
previous studies.
model.
3. Analyze the current miscible flood
performance.
The depositional environments identified In the
4.
;;;odthe new reservoir description and
reservoir description are shown in Figure 4.
performance
to
provide
Although each depositionalenvironmenthas p?ovlded
recommendations on how to optimize the
an important clue in understanding the miscible
remaining protiuction potential In the
flood performance,the most influentialfacies were
pool.
ths exposure surfaces.
Full understandingof the AA miscible flood and its
There wa$ stwmg evidence that the growth of the AA
optimization has two important ramificaticms.
buildup was 1nterrupted at 1east two times during
First. several misclble floods in the Rainbow field
periods of lowered sea level and caused the
are approachingmaturity and are developing a thin
development of exposure surfaces. The exposure
oil bank with solvent above the oil and the original
sediments are characterized by extremely low
oil-water contact below.
The efficiency of
porosity and permeability. Because of their origin
depleting this oil sandwich in the AA pool may
during buildup exposure, they form thin but
serve as a standard for the other miscible floods.
laterallyextensiveunits which can be correlatedin
Secondly, if the miscible flood mechanism and the
cores and on logs through a large part of the
geology is fully understood in the AA pool, future
buildup.
floods fn Rainbow can be designed and implemented
with less risk and greater confidence.
(b) Volumetric
SEOLOGY
Seismic isochron mapping played a leading role in
exploration and early development drilling in the
(a) ReservoirDescription
Rainbow Field. The method relied on detecting the
anomalies in the intwval<from the Base of the Cold
The
AA pool
is
one
of
more
than
80
Lake Salt marker to the Slave Point Formation. An
hydrocarbon-bearing carbonate buildups in the
increase in the stratal isochron between the twn
Rainbow Field. The buildupsdevelopedapproximately
markers was diagnosticof the presence of Keg-Rl~e;
3P0 million years ago in the nnrthwesterrfpart of
buildups. Isochron mapping was very successful In
the Middle Devonian Elk Point Basin. The Elk Point
locating the Keg River bulldups but could not
Basin was occupied by a shallow tropical sea which
provide detailed definition of buildup shape,
covered most of the provinceof Alberta and extended
particularlyin the flank areas.
as far south as North Dakota. At the northwestern
edge of the sea, an extensive barrier reef
Introductionof 3-D seismic in 1986 provided a more
(Presquile)developed, The barrier reef controlled
refined method of imaging the AA pool buildup.
the inflow of fresh marine water into the basin and
Because of the improved resolution of the 3-D
periodic restrictions lead to development of
seismic data, the top of the Keg River was
evaporltic conditions, Cfowth of the numerous
Identlfleddirectly. This Increasedaccuracyled to
smaller carbonate buildups, whi;~edeveloped in the
thedrllling of 4 wells on the flank of theAA pool
Rainbow sub-basin behind
barrier, was
which verified the 3-D seismic data. The expanded
interrupted by these high salinity
well database improvedthe control on the amount and
dlstributtonofporoslty In the reservoir, The more
accurate seismic estimate of the bulk rock volume
Tho AA pool is a carbonate buildup covering an area
combinedwith better definitionof porosity provided
of approximately one square mile and reaching
a new vo!umetrc stimate of original oil in place
elevatt,on
of nearly 165 metres above the surrounding
of 11.0 x 10i$ m ,
# summary of the reservoir
off-reef carbonate sed{ments (Figure 3).
The
propertiesfor the AA pool is provided In Table 1,
bulldup sediments are completely dolomitiseal. The
t~mlng and dolomitlzationof the AA pool as well as
(c) Unswept Oil
the other Ratnbow reservoirs ha
ot been clearly
established. Schmidt et al(141 f v,r early
low
permeability, exposure
Due to their wry
dolomitization,while Qlng and Mountjoyh$
surfaces act as ve~tical permeability baffles and
1ater dolomitlzatlon during intermedl
ate ~~!~?
may locally create conditions leadlng to bypassing
Although dolomltlzation completely destroyed the
of oil by the solvent front, This prlnclple is
original sediment fabric on the microscopic level,
:;MN4L
SF5 19656
RESERVOIRDESCRIPTIONAND PERFORMANCEANALYSIS OF
A MATURE MISCIBLE FLOOD IN RAINBOW FIELD, CANADA
SPE 196S6
(a) WaterfloodPerformancel,nal
ysis
The AA pool was never truly waterflooded, Water was
injected from 1971 to 1973 to increase the pressure
above the minimum miscibility pressure of 15,500
kPag prior to the commencement of the rrii
scible
f1ood. Water was again injected into the aquifer
from 1975 until 1981 as an emergency measure when
the availablegas quantitieswere not sufficientto
replace voidage, The pressure fluctuationsin the
reservoir reflect these periods of water injection
(Figure9).
292
SPE 19656
DIANE E.
BILOZIR,PAULM. FRYOL
~~eb~~ .
(b) Rate-TestingProgram
The second major influencing factor on predicting
future performanceis the magnitude of the sandwich
loss. Sandwich loss is the amount of oil which
<annot be produced from the thin oil bank because
the coning of solvent and water effectively
~;~;;;out the oil production. Sandwich loss was
~tras~]{)estimated in 1972 to be between 1.5 to 3.o
However, based on current performance,
this sandwich loss is now estimatedto be 4metres.
Quantifying the effects of water injectioe and
sandwich loss in the AA pool makes it possible to
estimate the future performance of the miscible
flOod.
Using the results of the swept zone
calculations(Appeqdi~E), the remainingrecoverable
oil is 1,105 x 10 m which indicates.an ultimate
recoveryof 70% (AppendixF). The decrease of 5% in
the overall recovery factor from the swept zone
recovery factor of 75% occurs directly because of
the sandwich loss and oil resaturation of the
water-swept area. The incrementalrecovery factor
over waterflood attributableto the miscible flood
was increasedfrom 11.3% to 21%.
DUCTION OPTIfiIZATIOH
(a) ProductionHistory and Forecast
Even though the reservoir description and the
current miscible flood performance are understood,
the prediction of future production rates is very
difficult, The oil bank is thin. At this rtage, it
is critical to
implement correct production
practisesto decrease the sandwich loss and thereby
improve the oil recovery. From the geological
model, it is known that an extra metre of oil
sandwich recovery translates into approximately
80,000 m3 cifoil. In order to estimate the oil, gas
and water production, two important facts were
considered:
Remaining ec verable oil is estimated at
1.
~ ~Olj~ ~J m!
2,
RESERVOIRDESCRIPTIONAND PERFORMANCEANALYSIS OF
A MATURE MISCIBLE FLOOD I RAINBOW FIELD, CANADA
.
The longevity of the xylu;;etreatment is unknown.
In .he Keg River B pool, xylene washes ar conducted
on some WO1lS as often as once a monthb.)
Given
the encou~agingresults of the rate-testingprogram,
some of the poorer producers of the AA pool should
benefit from a routine xylene-washprogram.
5.
6.
SPE 19656
294
CPF
lQtVWi
2.
3.
4.
c)
ththodologyfor ReservotrHanagemwt
formationvolume factor
compressibility
microscopicdisplacementefficiency
volume factor for expansior:
of fluid and
rock above Pb
recovery factor
volumetricdisplacementefficiency
cumulationgas production
gas-oil ratio
initialgas cap to oil zone ratio
cumulativeoil production
mid-point perforations
original oil-in-place
pressure
oil rate
recovery factor
produced gas-oil ratio
solutiongas-oil ratio
saturation
solvent-oilratio
variationof permeability
cumulativewater influx
water-oil ratio
cumulativewater production
a)
Reserve Estimates
1,
2,
b)
SUBSCRIPTS
b
f
o
t
w
PerformanceAnalysls
10
296
=
=
=
=
=
=
bubble point
gas
initial
oil
total
water
t?
In.
~
The authors would like to thank Mobil Oil Canada for
permissionto write, present and publish this paper.
The authors would also 1ike to thank Richard C.
Sydor who greatly assisted ;n running the coning
sinvlationmodel.
1.
2.
3.
4.
.
Reservoir Surveillance
Jonasson,
Program: Ju~yp&eek Beaverhill Lake A Pool
Hydrocarbon$iiscibleFlood, aper preprintNo.
86-37-34 presentedat the 37t Annual Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society of the
Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Calgary,Alberta, June 8-11 (1986).
Pool
Rei4zel, G.A. arsd Callow, G.O.:
Description and P formance Analysis Leads to
t
Spik~s Miscible Flood,
Understanding Gold
MiscibleS~~f~w.~ses# (SPE Reprint Serial No. Petroleum
Engineers,
M,
Richardson,Texas (1985) 580-589.
Reservoir
Depletion Study - Rainbow Keg River AA Pool,
Rainbow Field, Albert&ae
(NOCAN R69-47PEE-C),
application
Resources
ConservationBo~~d, June 9 (;=~~~
12. Slotboom, R.A. et al: MiscibleFlood Study Rainbow Keg River AA Pool, Alberta (NOCAN
R71-53PEE-C), application to the Ene y
ResourcesConservationBoard, October 1 (1971
7 .
Econ6mic
Evaluation of Solvent Flooding, Rainbow Keg
River AA Pool, Alberta {MCCAN R?3-22PEE),
application to the Government of the Province
of Alberta - Department of Energy and Natural
Resources,October 16 (1978).
14. Schmidt,
al:
t4iddle Devonian
V.
et
Cementation Peefs Encased in Evaporates,
Rainbow Field, Albwta,
Roehl, P.O. and
Choquette, P.U., eds.,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1888
m,
-,
y$~tista*
?
Dolomitization in Rainbow Buildups, Hidde
De\onian Keg River Formation,Alberta, Canadam,
16. Craft,
5.
6.
7,
8,
9.
Miscible
Displacementsof ReservoirOil Using Flue Gas,
AIM (1958) u,
7.
~,
.
., ,
Cdn,
Pet. Tec~
WOR-25; Mobility Ratiom 1; SW- O.082 (fr.);
V = 0.48 (Lower Limit); V -0.1 (
r Limit)
yY9!l
From Dykstra-ParsonsLinear Modei
LOWER LIMIT: , EF(l-O.52*SW = 9.379; Er = ,40
UPPER LIMIT:
Er(l-O.52*Sw
1 = 0,50; Er = ,52
D. ~flood
klOUllt
sWC@
-1,142,9+1,285142,1
APPENDIX
A. material Balance Wsulatfm
Cf= 4.06x 10-7; Cw= 4.35 x 10-7 vol/vol/kPa;
Sw = 0.082 (fr.); m = O; Pi = 16,090 kPag;
b
kpa;
-14933
Boi-15$159
= 1.3046;
B = p
1.3040
rm/m !Pag
;
Np = 126,600m ; Gp =13,216x 103 m3;
10 ,39 m3/m3;
Rsi = 92,73; h = 91.30; Rp
;:; : ;:~:;;;#::&70
!m3&
Wp=81m;
We=6~,000m; ~ ~f. O rm3/m3;
Bt + IRD RsilBol We+~
= 11 x 106 m3.
- Bti + if + mBti~Bg/Bgi-1]
~
= Ct*Delta P (Ref. 17)
PotentialAquifer Size
StabilizedIkterInflux = 63 x 103 m3 (Fig, S)
Ct = Cf + Cw = 8.41 x 10-7 vol/vol/kPa
Delta P - total pressuredrop Until
stabilizationof water influx
- 14,834 = 1,256 kPa
Thus, po~e~f{~faquifersize = 60 x 106 m3,
~mw
Mobi1
Exploration and
26. Sinnokrot, A.A.,
Producing ~ervices, Dallas, Texas, personal
communica,tlon,
March (1989).
1X B. llgyiferS~
~vorw
SPE 19656
-----
.-
-.
~,
3.
4.
5,
6.
Porosity, iercent
8*6O
Average Th Ickness,metres
63.11
Average Ol Zone Horizontal?ermeabllity,md
4500
Average 01 I Zone Vertical Permeability,md
875
ROCK Compr msibility, vol/vol/kPa(g)x 10-6
0,4S6
Fluid Olstrlbhion
Connate Wa ;erSaturation,percent
8,20
Orlgin41 O 11-liater
-1303,0
Contact?metres subsea
Current 01 -datarContact (1987),metres subsea -1 302,1
ReservoirPre ;sure
Datum, mei essubsea
-1~:4:i:
Original P essure,kPa(g) at datum
Current (1 189)Pressure,kPa(g) at datum
16150
Fluid Propert1es
Saturatloc Pressure,kPa(g)
15 160
Flash 011 !oluma Factc*, res m3/st m3
at In tial Pressure
1,3046
at Sa ;urationPressure
1,3070
Flash Solu ;ionGa~-Oil Ratio, m3/m3
Otl Oenslt t,g/cm
0.8!;
oil Viscos ltyat InitialConditions,mPa,s
0.472
Reservoir e erature C
84.4
Oil Compre ;si
T ility, vol/vol/kPa(g)x 10-6
1.84
Mater C
essibility,vol/vol/kPa(g)x 10-6
0.435
Reservoir Yo IIMS (1989)
Area, m!
2910000
Otl Zone R tckVolume, 1 3m3
183687
Original a il Content,
0.060
Original O l-in-Place,?;~m~~lfi3
11 000
Aquifer Data ;1989
i
Rock Volum ), 10m3
1 763
Average Pa ;0 ity, percent
Volume, 10 tm3
5;
Jablez.
WmwuUIM
forthe~
\TIVE
:P
J&
234
112
453
750
908
;;::
1221
1201
571
776
926
!34
146
fgg
i49
: 157
4 i23
6 105
i26
: 127
!98
1! 174
11 )00
THICKNESS
OF SLICE
-a
;;.;
12:2
12*2
1202
24,4
18,3
12,2
1:,;
6:1
6.1
294
CUMULATIVE
DEPTH FROM TOP
~
25,9
38,1
50.3
;:,;
99:1
117,4
129,6
141,8
147.9
154*,O
160.1
RELATIVE EFFECT
EVERSE CONl&
Exposure Surface
Favorable if above
perforations.
Curvatllm is imfmtant .
Reverse curvature is
not s favearableas
noraal curvature.
Unfavorable if
located at oilwater contact.
ClusteredVuggy
Porosity
Marginally
unfavorable.
Marginally
favorable.
Anisotropy Factor
Variation
Marginally
unfavorable.
marginally
favorable.
RESERVOIR FACIES
Fkl
homoge,wus
reservoir.
1971
188:
lsisl
2001
H-t--i
I
*
t
I
I
IL
II*
SPE
.
-
I
t-
sol
19656
.,
SW
19656
4\-=-\
0.,
o
400
800
1200
1600
0,093
0,025
0.0
0,018
0,0
0.0
Fig. 12-
Jun.
Radial Coning
Modol &ld System
~~-~1~.nslonal
,,
ta
sPE 19656
2,0
8MDCYIWED
0.6
1
1.2
t
1.4
,..=2
[RA
~)
1.6
CIMJLATIVE
Fig. 13-
AOTUAL
1.8
2:0
(ma )
&%$%GTlON
0
0
10
20
60
60
40
PEROENT RsOovmv
OF w
60
70
(~
WE 19656
6-
~Lms
e;
02
!i
~
CIJnvEDlsm
0 .~,
o
-~
10
20
so
40
Pmm47nEcOveRY
Fig. 15-
60
70
oFOow(%l
1 KILOMETRE
so
GAS CYCLING
...
,.:;.:
,,.,
,.,
{,,.:
,,.
n
REVERSE CONINQ
HORIZONTAL W
Fig. 16-
S$t
ao