Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
A sandstone reservoir at a depth of 2800 m in a western India onshore field contains highly under saturated light oil of 470
API with viscosity of 0.2 cp. The reservoir has a permeability ranging 50 to 300 md and high temperature of around 130 Deg
C. It is exploited by supplementing the partial water drive with water injection. Water injection was initiated in the early part
of its producing life and has recovered more than 30% of OIIP. Meanwhile, availability of natural gas from deeper reservoirs
in the field initiated a thinking process to examine the processes involving both miscible and immiscible displacement with gas
injection to improve the recovery factor from the reservoir. The reservoir was not found suitable for miscible process due to
higher miscibility pressure as compared to prevailing reservoir pressure of 250 Kg/cm2. Viability of immiscible WAG was
ascertained through both laboratory investigations and numerical simulation prior to its testing on a pilot scale in the field. The
process resulted in an increase in oil production along with reduction in water cut from the pilot and offset wells. Encouraging
pilot results led to the decision of expanding the process to the entire field. The paper also evaluates the effects of different
critical parameters on the recovery factor from immiscible WAG process through reservoir simulation studies.
Introduction
Recovering oil from mature fields is becoming more and more vital as finding new oil is not easy. The growing need to
increase the output and ultimate recovery by EOR methods has assumed great significance as far as mature oil fields are
concerned. Matured oil fields of Western onshore in India are also on the run for adding EOR oil through various technologies.
EOR techniques like in-situ combustion in heavy oil belt and Polymer flooding in one of the medium gravity fields are
commercially on stream.
For deeper reservoirs with temperature above 130 Deg C, chemical EOR processes are ruled out and gas injection
processes have been implemented. Amongst the various EOR methods, gas injection process has contributed significantly
towards EOR oil world over. A miscible gas injection project has been implemented in a light oil reservoir based on feasibility
studies involving lab investigations and simulation study. Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) injection, which can potentially add
reserve, is under pilot stage in the reservoir referred in this paper.
SPE 128848
From the case histories in the North Sea, it can be inferred that for dipping reservoirs, crestal injection is preferred
which can provide a gravity-stable front. In case of water flooded reservoirs, down dip injection is preferable which helps in
removing the attic oil by gas and cellar oil by water.
The key issues associated with WAG injection reported are mainly reduced injectivity, reservoir heterogeneities,
hydrate and asphaltenes formation. High permeability channels led to early gas break through in Brage field of North Sea and
the WAG injection had to be terminated. In such cases, microbial mechanisms can be useful for selective plugging and in
contacting the bypassed oil. Reduced injectivity arises due to the presence of two-phase in the wellbore and associated relative
permeability effects. Water injection into a reservoir results in cooling of the formation around the wellbore. The gas injection
after water flooding can form hydrates. This was considered as the main reason for WAG failure at Ekofisk field of North
Sea.2 Asphaltene problems were reported in East Vaccum and Wertz Tensleep fields. MEOR processes are useful in
overcoming the injectivity and asphaltene problems.
SPE 128848
reservoir with an initial reservoir pressure of 285 kg/cm2 and saturation pressure of 165 kg/cm2. The sand is
currently producing @ 350 m3/d with average water cut of 65 % through 14 producers and a water injection rate of
700m3/d. The reservoir is on pattern water flood since 1991 and has produced approximately 30% of its OIIP till
date.
Studies Undertaken
Displacement studies with live reservoir fluid were carried out both for single and multiple cycles of WAG injection in tertiary
stage at reservoir conditions after water flood. These experiments were simulated in 1-D to generate parameters relating to
three-phase hysteresis model. WAG injection process was planned for implementation in a pilot scale to evaluate the viability
of the process and generate necessary data for full field implementation at a later stage. Simulation studies were taken up for
examining strategies for these decisions. An up-scaled reservoir model of the selected pilot area was constructed from a fine
scale geo-cellular model. WAG process was simulated on this reservoir model to quantify the additional hydrocarbon recovery
over water flood and to optimize the parameters for pilot design.
Laboratory investigations
Laboratory investigations were carried out prior to designing of WAG pilot. Low pressure displacement studies were carried
out at ambient temperature to evaluate the effect of sequence of WAG injection on oil recovery and to gauge the impact of
trapped gas saturation on residual oil saturation. The results indicated that Gas-Water-Gas injection sequence gives higher
recovery than Water-Gas-Water injection sequence. Trapping of gas due to hysteresis, when gas flooding is followed by water
flooding, is a very important phenomenon in WAG injection process resulting in improved displacement efficiency. Data
generated from the low pressure displacement studies helped in estimating Lands Parameter which goes as an important input
for simulation of WAG processes.
Further, simulations of WAG process require the use of three-phase relative permeability hysteresis model. The threephase oil relative permeability was generated by standard Stones model but the residual oil saturation can be made a function
of the amount of trapped gas saturation. This enables the possibility of lower remaining oil saturation in three-phase dominated
regions.
Land formulated a relationship between the maximum and the residual saturation of the non wetting phase,
C = 1/Sgt 1/Sgi
Fig. 2 shows the Lands Parameter determined from the above experimental data. Larger is the value of Lands
Parameter lesser is the gas entrapment. For this particular reservoir, the Lands parameter was calculated to be 6.0.
To quantify the incremental recovery over water flood, displacement experiments were performed with live reservoir
fluid both for single cycle and multi cycle WAG injection. Single cycle WAG displacement experiment in tertiary stage at
reservoir conditions after water flood indicated an incremental oil recovery of 14.0% of HCPV (Fig. 3). 5 cycles of WAG
injection after primary water flooding showed an incremental gain of 14% of HCPV (Fig. 4). It was observed that WAG
injection in cycles has no effect on recovery over a single cycle WAG injection.
SPE 128848
Several variants were examined to quantify the additional recovery over water flood. It is expected that shorter WAG
cycles may favour the presence of three phases, resulting in a reduction of the gas relative permeability, giving a more
beneficial gas-oil mobility ratio, and a better displacement process compared to two phase gas oil flow.3 Additional recovery
due to WAG process in the pilot area with different WAG ratios (1:1 and 1:2) and different cycle lengths varying from 1
month to 6 months was quantified over the base case of water flood recovery. Comparative performance of the pilot area under
different cases studied is presented in Table 3.
All cases with half cycle lengths varying from 1 to 6 months resulted in similar recoveries. The studies have also
shown that increasing the WAG ratio to 1:2 did not result in any significant improvement in recovery from the pilot. Ideally, it
would be best to have smallest WAG cycle for highest oil recovery. But, from operational point of view it may be more
convenient to operate the pilot with half cycle length of 2 months. Therefore, considering the technical and operational aspects,
it was recommended that the pilot be operated by having two months of gas injection followed by two months of water
injection repeatedly till 5 years.
The study indicated that WAG injection is likely to result in approximately 9.5 % incremental recovery over
the base case of water injection. WAG injection process with WAG ratio of 1:1 and half cycle length of 2 months was found to
be the ideal process for the pilot. In addition to the incremental gain in the pilot area, the surrounding areas of the pilot would
also be benefited due to reduction in water cuts and improvement in ultimate oil recovery. Monitoring of the process would
also be carried out in offset producers (viz. G-W4, W12, W15 and W17).
SPE 128848
m3/d and peak gas injection rate of about 0.25 MMm3/d is envisaged for the field scale application. To optimize the recovery
WAG tapering is planned towards the end of WAG injection period. The initiation of field wide application is expected by
2011.
Conclusions
1. Literature survey of WAG project operated elsewhere provided a platform in the learning process.
2. Sensitivity analysis carried out over the hypothetical model demonstrated the effect of grid size, layer splitting,
displacement efficiency on recovery by an immiscible WAG.
3. Laboratory displacement studies with WAG injection in tertiary stage showed improvement in displacement efficiency by
14.5% over water flood in the targeted sand.
4. Simulation of WAG injection process carried out for the pilot area indicated that WAG injection is likely to result in
approximately 9.5 % incremental recovery over the base case of water injection.
5. The identified pilot is based on minimum investment criteria and which can best test the efficacy of the process. The pilot
demonstrated that WAG process causes reduction in mobility of water and results in reduced water cuts. The knowledge
gained from reservoir performance of pilot over three years has emphasized the need for commercial implementation of
the technology in field scale and add reserves of about 0.33 MMm3.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for permission to
publish this paper and to acknowledge the outstanding efforts demonstrated by those personnel of IRS who at one time or
other have contributed to this process and to the personnel of Ankleshwar Asset for implementing this challenging technology
for making tomorrow brighter.
References
A.R.Awan, R. Telgland, J. Kleppe, A survey of North Sea Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Projects Initiated During the years 1975 to
2005 paper SPE 99546 accepted for presentation at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 22-26 April
IMEX Reference Manual, CMG
J.R. Christensen, E.H. Stenby and A. Skauge, Review of WAG Field Experience, paper SPE 39883 presented at the International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Villa Hermosa, Mexico, 3-5 March 1998.
Nestor L. Sanchez, Management of Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection Projects, presented at the SPE Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Caracas, Venezuela, 21-23 April 1999
Nidia A. Crogh, Karen Eide, Siv E. Morterud, WAG Injection at the Statfjord Field, A Success Story, presented at the SPE 13th
European Petroleum Conference held in Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K., 29-31 October 2002.
SPE 128848
Datum depth, m
2
Initial Reservoir Pressure, kg/cm
o
Reservoir Temperature ( C )
Initial solution GOR, v/v
3
3
Oil FVF at Pb, m /sm
2
Pb , kg/cm
Viscosity of oil at Pb, cp.
2815.0
285.0
128
180
1.733
8.
9.
0.22
806.6
165
0.176
1.14
1050
0.24
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
0.3
0.8
0.16
0.25
0.77
Krw at Sorw
Krg at Sorg
Sorg
Sgrmax
Displacement efficiency
Homogeneous
Heterogeneous
Fining upward
Heterogeneous
Coarsening upward
Reference case*
28.82
27.97
29.79
28.82
27.99
29.79
No. of layers, 6
28.64
27.73
29.69
No. of layers, 12
28.44
27.52
29.62
28.64
27.77
29.67
28.94
28.09
29.86
WAG Ratio
Half cycle
length
WAG injection
period
Oil
recovery
Incremental
recovery over
base case
(Months)
(Years)
(%)
(%)
Base
Water
56.2
Case-1
1:1
65.7
9.5
Case-2
1:1
65.7
9.5
Case-3
1:1
65.6
9.4
Case-4
1:1
65.7
9.5
Case-5
1:1
65.6
9.4
Case-6
1:2
2+1
66.6
10.4
Case-7
1:2
4+2
66.6
10.4
Case-8
1:2
6+3
66.7
10.5
SPE 128848
22
20
1/Sg i
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
C = (1/Sgt) - (1/Sgi)
Land's Parameter (C) =6.0
2
0
0
7
1/Sgt
10
11
12
13
14
Sgi
Sgt
0.272
0.103
6.07
0.199
0.089
6.14
0.080
0.049
7.62
SPE 128848
0.90
0.80
Waterflood+WAG
0.70
14 %
Waterflood
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
PV Inje cte d
Fig. 3-Displacement efficiency Vs. Pore volume injected (1 Cycle of WAG injection)
0.90
0.80
0.70
14
%
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
G 1.400
GW
W G1.600
WG
W2.000
G W
1.200
1.800
2.200
1.000
PV Injected
Fig. 4-Displacement efficiency Vs. Pore volume injected (5 Cycles of WAG injection)
SPE 128848
Fig. 5-Match of experimental data and 1-D simulation results (5 Cycles of WAG injection)
G-W7
G-W5
G-W9
G-W8
G-W13
G-W15
G-W2
G-W18
G-W14
G-W16
G-W4
G-W1
G-W10
G-W3
G-W11
G-W12
G-W17
G-W6
M o nt h
Jul-09
Apr-09
Jan-09
Oct-08
Jul-08
Apr-08
Jan-08
Oct-07
Jul-07
Apr-07
Jan-07
Oct-06
250
100
200
80
150
60
100
40
20
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Jan-09
Nov-08
Sep-08
Jul-08
May-08
Mar-08
Jan-08
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jul-07
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
Nov-06
Sep-06
Jul-06
60
May-06
80
Jul-06
0
Mar-06
Jan-06
100
Apr-06
50
Jan-06
10
SPE 128848
G-W18
G-W15
G-W7
G-W6
G-W8
G-W4
40
G-W13
20
SPE 128848
11
50
W
ater Cut SC- %
40
30
10
0
2006-2 2006-3
2006-4
2006-5
2006-6 2006-7
2006-8
Time (Date)
2007-1
His60i10_2.irf
His60i10_2_no w ag.irf
Fig. 9-Simulation showing the decline in water cut for Well G-W15
80
6.00e+6
5.50e+6
60
4.50e+6
4.00e+6
3.50e+6
40
3.00e+6
2.50e+6
RF % (Base)
2.00e+6
20
1.50e+6
1.00e+6
5.00e+5
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
Time (Date)
2030
0.00e+0
2040
5.00e+6
Cum oil (Base)