Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Spring 2016
Bryson Jones
University of Wyoming
Trent Kostenuk
University of Wyoming
Quentin Stronski
University of Wyoming
Tyson Trail
University of Wyoming
Recommended Citation
Holowaty, Brennan; Jones, Bryson; Kostenuk, Trent; Stronski, Quentin; Trail, Tyson; and Zuchetto, Ryan, "Enhanced Oil Recovery
Planning" (2016). Petroleum Engineering Senior Design Final Reports. 6.
http://repository.uwyo.edu/petro_senior_design/6
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Chemical & Petroleum Engineering Student Scholarship at Wyoming Scholars Repository.
It has been accepted for inclusion in Petroleum Engineering Senior Design Final Reports by an authorized administrator of Wyoming Scholars
Repository. For more information, please contact scholcom@uwyo.edu.
Author
Brennan Holowaty, Bryson Jones, Trent Kostenuk, Quentin Stronski, Tyson Trail, and Ryan Zuchetto
This document contains final project objectives and recommendations. The project focuses on
performing a reservoir characterization and dynamic simulation in an effort to develop the
primary objective of the group, an optimum enhanced oil recovery scenario (EOR) for the Candy
Draw field located in Campbell County, Wyoming.
Executive Summary
The team’s project was to provide an EOR recommendation to the “Candy Draw Field” located
in Northeastern Wyoming.
Initially, a field overview was obtained from the EORI including the associated field information,
wells, tops, production history, and reservoir properties. Twelve wells have produced roughly
four million stock tank barrels since 1985. This total includes the incremental production gained
from the current water‐flood program started in 1990 of which produced approximately two
million, three hundred thousand barrels. During this year, 5 wells were converted to water
injectors to begin a secondary recovery water flood scheme. This information was obtained
from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission website.
After researching the applicable EOR methods for this field and consulting with the EOR
screening check sheet, the team decided that a polymer injection program would be best suited
for this application. With this information, the group performed a field characterization,
constructing both a static and dynamic model by utilizing the combination of Schlumberger’s
“Petrel” software program and CMG. As this field has been part of a water‐flood injection
program since 1990, part of the analysis was to note the incremental production generated and
to evaluate the water‐flood program and injection rates to the current secondary recovery
program. The team then performed a complete evaluation based on the models constructed
and has provided a final EOR recommendation based on the results and researched findings.
The team’s economic feasibility analysis illustrates the benefits of implementing comparable
polymer flooding EOR projects to similar reservoirs that are in a more virgin state. The results
show a stark contrast in profit in regards to the timing of the EOR project. The team
recommends reservoirs with less pressure drawdown and production depletion when
considering such an EOR planning project.
An undertaking of this magnitude has required significant time, energy and successful
collaboration by all team members. Changes have been agreed upon with ongoing challenges in
order to better suit a desired project result on schedule. Included in this report are the final
project work‐flow chart, project schedule (Gantt chart) and risk assessment all purposed to
provide stakeholders with visual representations of the progress and overall map of the project.
The project plan includes the various tasks, sub tasks, decision points and deliverables broken
down item by item. This facilitates a quick and complete understanding for stakeholders of the
necessary steps that were required to complete the project on time.
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................ii
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iv
Nomenclature ................................................................................................................................. iv
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Team Strategy ................................................................................................................................. 5
Project Workflow ........................................................................................................................ 6
Project Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 9
Risk Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 11
Data Review .................................................................................................................................. 13
Stratigraphic Review – Powder River Basin .................................................................................. 14
Project Results .............................................................................................................................. 16
Petrel Static Modeling ............................................................................................................... 16
CMG Dynamic Modelling .......................................................................................................... 21
Enhanced Oil Recovery Planning .............................................................................................. 29
Enhanced Oil Recovery Economics ............................................................................................... 31
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 40
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 41
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... A
Appendix #1: Well Data .............................................................................................................. A
Appendix #2: Risk Matrix ............................................................................................................ B
ii
Table of Figures
Figure 2: Candy Draw Field Area and Boundaries [1] ..................................................................... 2
Figure 3: Powder River Basin Location [5] ...................................................................................... 2
Figure 4: Annual Oil and Water Production .................................................................................... 3
Figure 5: Annual Oil and Water Production .................................................................................... 4
Figure 6: Phase 1 Project Planning .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 7: Phase 1 Project Planning (Continued) ............................................................................. 7
Figure 8: Phase 2 Project Execution ................................................................................................ 8
Figure 9: Candy Draw Structural Map [4] ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 10: Powder River Basin ‐ Geological Timeline [5] .............................................................. 15
Figure 10: Petrel – Top of Minnelusa Structural Map .................................................................. 16
Figure 11: Petrel – 3‐D Base of Minnelusa Structure ................................................................... 17
Figure 12: Petrel – 2‐D Base of Minnelusa Structural Map .......................................................... 17
Figure 13: Petrel – 2‐D Porosity Map ............................................................................................ 18
Figure 14: Petrel‐ Permeability Model .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 15: Petrel – 2‐D Water Saturation Map ............................................................................. 20
Figure 15: CMEX IMEX – Simulation to Date ................................................................................ 22
Figure 16: CMG IMEX‐ Polymer Model Simulation ....................................................................... 23
Figure 17: Time Step #1(1985)‐ Oil Saturation ............................................................................. 24
Figure 18: Time Step #2(1988)‐ Oil Saturation ............................................................................. 25
Figure 19: Time Step#3(2000)‐ Oil Saturation .............................................................................. 25
Figure 20: Time Step#4(2026) ‐ Oil Saturation ............................................................................. 26
Figure 21: Time Step#1(1985) ‐ Water Saturation ........................................................................ 26
Figure 22: Time Step#2(1991)‐ Water Saturation ........................................................................ 27
Figure 23: Time Step#3(2006) ‐ Water Saturation ........................................................................ 27
Figure 24: Time Step#4(2026) ‐ Water Saturation ........................................................................ 28
Figure 25: EOR Screening Criteria ................................................................................................. 30
Figure 27: Polymer EOR Flood [6] ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 28: Annual Polymer EOR Production – 2016 Startup ........................................................ 34
Figure 29: Return on Investment ‐ 2016 Startup .......................................................................... 35
Figure 30: Annual Oil and Water Production ................................................................................ 36
Figure 31: Annual Polymer EOR Production – 21994 Startup ...................................................... 37
Figure 32: Return on Investment ‐ 1994 Startup .......................................................................... 37
Figure 33: Well Data [1] .................................................................................................................. A
Figure 34: Risk Matrix ..................................................................................................................... B
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Well Count and Production Overview .............................................................................. 1
Table 2: Project Schedule .............................................................................................................. 10
Table 3: Risk Assessment .............................................................................................................. 11
Table 4: Data Review .................................................................................................................... 13
Table 5: 8 TH Reservoir, Austria Polymer Costs (Euros) SPE, Sieberer, Jamek, Clemens ............. 32
Table 6: 8 TH Reservoir, Austria Polymer Costs Applied to Candy Draw, Wyoming .................... 33
Table 7: Cumulative Polymer EOR Production – 2016 Startup ..................................................... 34
Table 8: Cumulative Polymer EOR Production – 1994 Startup ..................................................... 36
Nomenclature
UWYO EORI University of Wyoming Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute
WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
EIC Energy Innovation Center
LAS Log ASCII Standard
CMG Computer Modelling Group Ltd.
iv
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Introduction
A team of six petroleum engineering students were selected to perform Enhanced Oil Recovery
(EOR) research and plan a development project. The group selected the “Candy Draw” field
located in Northeastern Wyoming (see figure 1). The field was discovered in June of 1985 by
Marlin Oil Corporation. Over the duration of field activity, twelve wells have reported
production while only seven are currently active producers. Five are active water injectors.
There are also two abandoned wells that were not included in the analysis. The field produces
from a stratigraphic trap structure in the lower B sandstone of the Permian Minnelusa
formation located within the Powder River Basin. The first discovery well was drilled in July of
1985. The field was discovered by utilizing seismic stratigraphic data. Unfortunately, the seismic
data was not available for this project. The field contains nine million barrels of proven reserves
and has reported a cumulative production of over four million stock tank barrels to date.
Table 1: Well Count and Production Overview
1 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Figure 1: Candy Draw Field Area and Boundaries [1]
The Powder River Basin is a geologic
structural basin located primarily in
Northeastern Wyoming and
Southeastern Montana. The basin is
responsible for supplying upwards of
forty‐three percent of the nation’s
coal. Hydrocarbons are produced
from rocks predominantly from the
thick section of Cretaceous rock. The
Candy Draw field’s producing
Minnelusa formation is located at an
average depth of seventy‐four
hundred feet into the basin.
The field has been utilizing a
secondary recovery water flood
treatment since the early 1990’s in an
effort to increase recovery rate. The
ultimate project objective is to
research and analyze various Figure 2: Powder River Basin Location [5]
enhanced oil recovery options and
make an educated recommendation for future production scenarios.
2 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Figure 3: Annual Oil and Water Production
Shortly after the field was subjected to a waterflood secondary recovery plan, production rates
drastically declined. Referring to figure 3 above, you can conclude injection “breakthrough”
occurs approximately in the year 1992. This breakthrough is defined as when a field first begins
to produce the injected water. In 1992, water production rates jumped from an average of
twenty‐thousand barrels per year between 1985 and 1991 to an average of nearly three‐
hundred twenty‐five thousand barrels annually between 1993 and 2014. A distinct drop off in
production can be seen just as injection breakthrough occurs. This phenomenon raises
questions regarding the waterflood injection program and further validates the viability of a
tertiary recovery program for this field. This will be explored in detail during the project.
Cumulative oil and water production is reflected in the graph below (figure 4). The plateau of oil
production indicates the waterflood injection program benefit may be limited or less effective
than originally expected. However, according to “SciTech Connect”, two million barrels of
additional production were expected from the waterflood injection program and that total has
been exceeded. The scope of this project will address these questions in detail.
3 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Figure 4: Annual Oil and Water Production
An evaluation of the field was completed based on the results of a reservoir characterization
and dynamic simulation developed by utilizing petroleum engineering software such as
Schlumberger’s “Petrel” and Computer Modelling Group’s (CMG) “IMEX”. IMEX is a three‐
phase, black‐oil reservoir simulator, also capable of simulating polymer injection rate
production effects. These results ultimately allowed the team to create a detailed EOR plan.
The final optimum EOR scenario specifically tailored to the Candy Draw field was determined
from the inputted field, as well as reservoir and production data obtained from the EORI and
WOGC. The ultimate project objective was to research and analyze various enhanced oil
recovery options and make an educated, economic recommendation for future production
scenarios.
4 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Team Strategy
Upon selecting the candidate field to be optimized, a specific strategy/plan was put in place to
ensure that all deliverables as well as the final product would be completed on time. Firstly, the
large group of six was sub‐divided into three groups of two to divide out the tasks equally. This
would allow the team members to work in smaller groups enabling a more specific focus which
has proven to be more effective through the duration of the project. To ensure that the group
as a whole remains collaborative, aligned, and working toward the same objectives, the team
scheduled frequent meetings to keep each other informed on each sub group’s progress.
Additionally, the group had implemented a messaging application which helped to keep the
group updated. Although the sub tasks were divided up, the major deliverables were completed
as a large group to ensure that everyone had input and agreed with the content included in the
submitted deliverables.
Upon discovering the geophysical log format was incompatible with the software, the group
was faced with additional tasks. As a result, the team had to alter the schedule and strategy
accordingly. The group’s GANTT and Work flow deliverables were revised accordingly.
Otherwise the original strategy was proven effective as challenges were overcome.
5 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Project Workflow
In developing the group’s project workflow chart, the group considered all projects tasks,
decision points, dependencies and deliverables. The project was separated into two main
phases. Phase one focused on project planning initiatives specifically, while the second phase
concentrated on project execution.
The planning initiative phase began with utilizing the UWYO EORI database in making an
informed selection of an appropriate field. Ultimately, the group decided on the “Candy Draw”
field located in Northeastern Wyoming. After completing the first decision point, the first task
was to acquire all available reservoir and well data from the UWYO EORI database, as well as
the WOGCC. The acquired data was then used to develop the first deliverables; the draft
interim design, as well as team assignments, project workflow and scheduling.
Figure 5: Phase 1 Project Planning
6 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
In order to complete the objectives of a reservoir characterization and simulation, thorough
research of any and all software available was executed. Group members were tasked with this
research and ultimately the most relevant software suite was selected. Concurrently, group
members were tasked with conducting EOR research with the intent of identifying all methods
that were applicable to the reservoir. Upon completing the research and making a decision on a
software suite, group members were tasked with the development of a risk assessment. This
entailed identifying potential project risks, controlling them, and mitigating them as required.
This concluded the project planning initiatives phase.
Figure 6: Phase 1 Project Planning (Continued)
The second phase (figure 8 below) of the project began with organizing, correlating and most
importantly, verifying all the raw reservoir and well data. This was a crucial task because
through the development of the risk assessment, data integrity was identified as the biggest
risk based on impact and likeliness. Once the data was deemed complete and accurate, next
began the task of loading the data into the selected software suite. Upon the completion of this
task, the reservoir characterization objective was completed. The reservoir characterization was
then used to develop the second project objective, the reservoir simulation.
The reservoir characterization and simulation models, in addition to the EOR research
conducted earlier, allowed the group to make an informed decision on the selection and
development of the optimum EOR scenario.
7 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Figure 7: Phase 2 Project Execution
8 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Project Schedule
The project schedule (table 25) was broken down into two phases. The first phase consisted of
project planning which included design review, scheduling, planning deliverables, data review,
and research. All team members were accountable for deliverables while the research and data
review were broken into groups of two. This provided high productivity levels during phase one
of project planning. Team meetings provided sufficient updates to ensure all members were
informed of current project status. Phase one was completed the week of December 7, 2015.
Phase two was a continuation of data review as well as data input needed to complete the
project execution. Once the reservoir characterization and simulation were completed, an
optimum EOR method was selected. An EOR planning scheme was planned, taking into account
economics, environmental safety, and development strategies; thus concluding phase two.
A significant change to the project schedule involved making the EOR research concurrent with
the reservoir characterization research. This change was made because the deliverables did not
depend on one another. This allowed deliverables to be completed at the same time.
Other changes made to the project schedule included adjusting the time allocated for
converting log data to a compatible format using Neuralog. Converting logs from image files to
las files was not in the original scope of the project but was a necessary change in order for the
characterization software to accept log data. This task increased the project work load.
The final addition to the project schedule was the EOR planning and economics tasks. These
tasks were pushed back in the timeline due to complications with the simulation software.
Most of the research was completed earlier in the schedule but the selection of an optimal EOR
plan was not able to be completed until the week of April 18, 2016.
9 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Table 2: Project Schedule
10 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Risk Analysis
There were four primary potential risks identified with this project. The first risk involved issues
with project scheduling. The impact rating of this risk was deemed minor because the Gantt
chart and project scheduling could be adjusted accordingly throughout duration of project. The
risk was rated unlikely because group members were notified of any scheduling changes well in
advance and the syllabus was clear and specific. Overall risk level before safeguards as
determined by the risk level chart was low. Mitigations and controls included regular project
updates and scheduling reviews to ensure timely coordination of project tasks and deliverables.
Risk level after safeguards was low.
Table 3: Risk Assessment
11 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
The second risk was identified as issues with stakeholder relations. The impact rating was
determined to be moderate because healthy team dynamics were critical to project success
and progression. The risk was rated as unlikely as team members value inter‐team relationships
and are respectful to all involved stakeholders. The overall risk level before safeguards was
determined by the risk level chart as moderate. Mitigations and controls included professional
treatment of all involved stakeholders, as well as regularly implemented team building
exercises. Risk level after safeguards is low.
The third identified risk was ineffective communication. The impact rating of this risk was
deemed as major because in cases of ineffective communication, quality and efficiency of
project tasks, decisions, and deliverables would be compromised. The risk was rated as unlikely
because group members possess communication tools required to effectively schedule and
attend group meetings. The overall risk level before appropriate safe guards as determined by
the risk level chart was high. Current mitigations and controls included utilizing effective
communication tools and attending all team meetings to minimize misunderstandings and
promote constructive team discussion. Risk level after safeguards was low.
The final identified risk was compromised data integrity. The risk impact rating was determined
to be major because insufficient data quality or lack of data would have negative implications
on modelling and decision points. The likelihood rating was moderate because data acquired by
the group members was relatively incomplete. The overall risk level as determined by the risk
level chart was extreme, making this the projects most critical risk. Mitigations and controls
included review of data and correlations to ensure no discrepancies. Any outcropping data was
reviewed and eliminated as required.
The risks that were identified above and mitigated included data integrity and project
scheduling. With data integrity the group identified that the log file format was incompatible
with the two software programs chosen for modelling. The risk was mitigated by finding a trial
version of a software that converted the log files to the compatible file format. The project
scheduling risk included major changes to the workflow because of a better understanding of
the scope and direction of the project. The group met and decided upon proper workflow
changes and discussed new decision points and task paths.
New risks identified included the learning curve with the new software chosen for the dynamic
modelling of the reservoir, CMG. The risk mitigation began immediately as the group contacted
professionals at the school for direction and tutorial recommendations to make the new
software more familiar.
12 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Data Review
The amount of data review required has been extensive. Reservoir characterization and
simulation needed to include all field, well, formation, reservoir, and production data.
Unfortunately, seismic data could not be acquired for this project. Shortcomings with the data
reside mostly with well log file format. All of the log files obtained were in .tif format, which is
more or less a scan of the hardcopy log, and not compatible with the selected characterization
and simulation software Petrel and CMG. Multiple attempts were made to contact the
operating company with no word back to see if the team could obtain .las log files, which are
compatible. Mitigation strategy was followed and upon researching possible solutions the team
contacted a software company called Neuralog and obtained a trial for a digital log converting
software. The free trial presented challenges in the form of learning how to function the
software. Also, the free trial granted was for a relatively short duration, 15 days. The team was
able to overcome this challenge and got the project back on schedule within two weeks.
Field Information Well Information
Discovery year Well identification (APINO numbers)
Well counts Well location (UWI and latitude/longitude)
Field status Well elevation
Primary/Secondary reservoir Producing reservoir
Avg. Reservoir depth Well status
Avg. Reservoir thickness Completion date
Avg. Elevation Total depth
Cumm. Production Geophysical log data
Reservoir Properties Formation Information
Geographic basin Formation names
Lithology Formation tops
Net pay Kelly bushing elevations
Permeability Perforation Intervals
Depth Natural Fractures
Temperature Faulting
Viscosity Depositional Enviroment
Production Information
Complete annual and monthly oil production (bbls)
Complete annual and monthly gas production (Mcf)
Complete annual and monthly water (bbls)
Table 4: Data Review
13 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Stratigraphic Review – Powder River Basin
In Figure 9 below, a structural map of the Candy draw field is displayed. More specifically, the
contoured lines depicted are those of the Minnelusa formation in a sub‐sea depth scale. This
map shows the structurally high and low points of the reservoir which was helpful in inputting
contour lines into the Petrel modelling software. This generated more accurate water and oil
saturation values (area specific) as well as a better understanding the current water injection
scheme/format.
Figure 8: Candy Draw Structural Map [4]
14 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Figure 9: Powder River Basin ‐ Geological Timeline [5]
Demonstrated in Figure 10, is a cross‐section of the Powder River Basin in which the Candy
Draw is located. The Minnelusa is Permian in age (Later years of the Paleozoic Era) and had a
deposition similar to Sabkha in the Persian Gulf (sand dunes). Main types of trapping
mechanisms of the Minnelusa formation include Opeche (cap rock) truncation and sealing, loss
of porosity by anhydrite cementation, and encasement by dolomite. Knowing how the
formation was trapped was a huge aid in determining the optimal EOR polymer injection
scheme for the Candy Draw field as well as understanding the current water flooding scheme.
15 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Project Results
Petrel Static Modeling
As phase two of the project was underway, an unforeseen circumstance was encountered and
addressed by the project’s data integrity risk mitigation strategy. Unfortunately, the well log
data the team acquired was an incompatible file format. Several attempts were made to
contact the operating company, Marlin Oil Corporation, to try and retrieve .las format log files
but the group was unsuccessful in its attempts. The team’s solution to this roadblock was to
contact a software company called Neuralog and receive a license for a fifteen day trial of their
software which has the ability to digitize the physically scanned log files into the desired .las
format. The roadblock put the project two weeks behind schedule, but the project schedule
recovered to a timely completion.
Figure 10: Petrel – Top of Minnelusa Structural Map
In figure 10, a 2‐D display of the top of the Minnelusa formation is shown (arrow pointing
North) along with its respective wells. This map is comparable to Figure 9 in the pages above
which, is a good indicator of validity with respect to the input data. In the picture above, solid
circles indicate oil producers, open circles with arrows through them indicate injectors, and
circles with cross‐hares indicate that they are abandoned. The structural map represents the
16 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
changes in subsea elevation across the producing reservoir formation. As in the scale above, the
red area to the north are the highest, while the south is the lowest in the Minnelusa formation.
The structural map above is critical in determining the oil water contact. From this information,
interpolations can be made as to how the injection wells will react throughout the formation.
North is into the page
Figure 11: Petrel – 3‐D Base of Minnelusa Structure
Upwards Direction is North
Figure 12: Petrel – 2‐D Base of Minnelusa Structural Map
17 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Shown in Figure 11 and 12, is a 3‐D and a 2‐D base subsea elevation structural map of the
Minnelusa formation. The base is used in the following images to really emphasize on the
structures within the Minnelusa formation. Again, red being the highest elevation showing a
prominent anticlinal structure, and purple showing structurally low points in the formation.
Displayed on the 3D map is the total vertical depth shown on the y‐axis. This paints a good
picture to how deep the wells are with respect to sea level and ground elevation.
Upwards Direction is North
Figure 13: Petrel – 2‐D Porosity Map
Figure 13 above, is a 2‐D porosity map of the Minnelusa formation. The map is an indicator
demonstrating the porosity variations throughout the reservoir. The porosity values were
created from the neutron density logs imported into petrel. Creating a porosity map was
necessary for interpretation of the producing Minnelusa zone, and well as future simulations in
CMG. The porosity map demonstrates and average porosity was in the range of 19 to 20
percent, depicting a good sandstone reservoir.
18 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Figure 14 below, is a 2‐D permeability map of the Minnelusa formation. The map is an indicator
demonstrating the permeability variance throughout the reservoir. Using the average
permeability of 107mD, permeability map was generated. In order to create permeability
variance within the reservoir, 107mD was set as a mean permeability. An assumption of 25mD
standard deviation was then applied. Appling this assumption the modeled reservoir should
demonstrated characteristics closer to true values. The permeability map along with the
created data created in the static model is necessary to accurately perform reservoir
simulations.
Upwards Direction is North
Figure 14: Petrel‐ Permeability Model
19 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Upwards Direction is North
Figure 15: Petrel – 2‐D Water Saturation Map
Above in Figure 15, is a 2‐D water saturation map representing the water ‘wet’ areas of the
Minnelusa formation. As depicted in the picture, a mean water saturation 70 percent is shown
indicating an oil saturation of about 30 percent. This is useful in knowing how our dynamic
model will react to more oil saturated areas and how the team could potentially target the red
areas in the reservoir as shown above.
20 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
CMG Dynamic Modelling
A major deviation from the original project plan was to use CMG software for dynamic
modeling rather than Petrel. Multiple software suites were researched and the decision was
made as a result of feedback received from key project stakeholders during the symposium in
December 2015. The team followed up on these recommendations in multiple meetings with
Dr. Alvarado, Associate Professor of the University of Wyoming’s Petroleum Engineering
department. Dr. Alvarado works closely with the University’s Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute
(EORI). Petrel was utilized for the static model as the software had the capability of exporting
static models from Petrel to CMG for dynamic modeling. In the project simulation there were
too many assumption required to run the STARS polymer flooding simulation. The group
decided to use IMEX for both simulations. The black oil model in IMEX was used for secondary
water injection simulation, and the Polymer model in IMEX was used for polymer flooding
simulation
CMG requires various inputs and assumptions to model flow between dates through the
reservoir. The file had to be saved as a rescue file (.bin) from Petrel and then uploaded into
CMG in a bin format. Upscaling the grid blocks was necessary as CMG has a maximum allowable
input of 10,000. The original model that the group tried to upload was in the range of 66,500.
Once the grid was up‐scaled to the acceptable grid block cap, all of the geophysical properties
had to be up‐scaled as well. Having the geophysical properties up‐scaled allowed us to import
properties into the CMG model for dynamic simulation. Without up‐scaling the geophysical
properties individually the dynamic model cannot interpolate the individual properties. The
geophysical properties imported from petrel were porosity, I‐J‐K permeability and water and oil
saturations. All of the individual property maps are displayed above in the static model section.
With the exception of permeability, only an average permeability map is included.
21 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Creating a dynamic model simulation that displayed accurate results was important to the
project. History matching was an important component needed in achieving an acceptable
accuracy percentage. Another component that was significant to achieving accurate results was
having the correct start‐up/shut‐in dates input correctly into CMG. As some of the wells in the
field changed from producers to injectors during their life‐span history so matching was
significant in achieving a realistic model. Figure 15 is a simulation of the Candy draw field ran
until January 1st, 2016. As seen in the figure below, the cumulative production from the model
to date is 744,490 m3 (4.68 MMbbls) of oil. As stated above, the actual cumulative production
for the Candy Draw field is 4.1 MMbbls of oil. These numbers demonstrated an 11.5% over‐
estimation in cumulative production. Although the history matching was not a hundred percent
accurate, the group felt it was close enough to proceed forward with the EOR polymer flooding
simulation.
Figure 16: CMEX IMEX – Simulation to Date
22 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Figure 16 below is a simulation of the Candy draw field to January 1st 2026. These production
numbers account for the field being under secondary water flood until January 1st 2016, then
being converted to tertiary polymer flooding for the duration of the simulation. As
demonstrated in the figure, the cumulative oil production in the Candy Draw field after 10 years
of polymer flooding is estimated to be 1,145,300 m3 (7.2 MMbbls) of oil. When compared to a
water injection simulation running until the year 2026, this is a significant increase in
cumulative production. This will be later discussed throughout the economics portion of the
report.
Figure 17: CMG IMEX‐ Polymer Model Simulation
As described later in the economics portion of the report, numerous simulations were run for
two different economic cases. Case 1 is the example shown above where a water flood was run
until 2016, then the reservoir was converted to a polymer flooding operation. Case 2 is a
theoretical simulation converting to polymer flooding in the year 1994. This date was deemed
the best time to switch to EOR recovery. The group deemed it was the best time to switch to
polymer flooding as production from waterflood was declining. Cumulative production results
were simplified in tables rather that showing all of the simulation data directly from CMG. This
data is shown in the economics section.
23 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
One of the important aspects of the dynamic model is to show the time steps of dynamic
properties that changed throughout the simulation. As described earlier, having accurate
geophysical property models in the static model is necessary to run the dynamic model. These
properties needed to be imported directly from the static model. Without these petrel
properties, CMG was unable to interpret and run a dynamic model simulation. The time step
figures shown below for both oil and water saturation are from 1985 to 2016. These depict the
Case 1 scenario where the candy draw field was under secondary recovery water injection until
2016, then switched to tertiary polymer flooding EOR recovery. The group felt it was necessary
to include the time lapse for oil and water saturations. The water saturation figures showed
better visuals of the injection program in the Candy Draw field. To incorporate the best images
of the property changes during the simulation, the time step for water and oil saturations are
not taken in the same years. Figures 17 through 20 show time step images of oil saturation, and
figures 21 through 24, show the time step images of water saturation.
Injection Wells
Production Wells
Figure 18: Time Step #1(1985)‐ Oil Saturation
24 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Injection Wells
Production Wells
Figure 19: Time Step #2(1988)‐ Oil Saturation
Injection Wells
Production Wells
Figure 20: Time Step#3(2000)‐ Oil Saturation
25 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Injection Wells
Production Wells
Figure 21: Time Step#4(2026) ‐ Oil Saturation
Injection Wells
Production Wells
Figure 22: Time Step#1(1985) ‐ Water Saturation
26 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Injection Wells
Production Wells
Figure 23: Time Step#2(1991)‐ Water Saturation
Injection Wells
Production Wells
Figure 24: Time Step#3(2006) ‐ Water Saturation
27 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Injection Wells
Production Wells
Figure 25: Time Step#4(2026) ‐ Water Saturation
28 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Enhanced Oil Recovery Planning
When a virgin oil field is first produced, driving forces such as water drive, gas cap expansion or
solution gas drive mechanisms will naturally produce the reservoir for some time. However,
once this driving mechanism is exhausted, other means are necessary to maximize the project’s
economics. At this juncture, secondary recovery and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods are
considered. As this project is focused on exploring various possibilities for secondary recovery
and EOR scenarios, the project team has devoted considerable time to EOR research.
Ultimately, the team recommends polymer flooding scenario for the subject, Candy Draw field.
EOR projects now account for approximately three percent of the world’s total oil production.
With the drastic drop in conventional hydrocarbon production, the concept of EOR planning has
become more important than ever. There are three main mechanisms which may improve oil
displacement and/or production; solvent extraction for miscibility improvement, interfacial‐
tension reduction, and viscosity change. The polymer flooding strategy utilizes viscosity change
properties to improve oil sweeping effectiveness. Oil prices are the primary factor in
determining if and how EOR projects are funded and implemented.
Illustrated below in Figure 25 are screening criteria for the eight most popular EOR methods.
Additional screening criteria included reservoir clay content and injection brine salinity; both
should be low for desirable results. An EOR method is selected based on the screening criterion
of oil properties such as gravity, viscosity, and composition. Reservoir properties such as
formation permeability, depth and temperature are also important. The most suitable reservoir
properties for polymer injection flooding are high permeability and low temperature.
29 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Figure 26: EOR Screening Criteria
When the Candy Draw field and its producing formation are compared with the
aforementioned criteria, eliminations of potential methods can be immediately made. Nitrogen
and flue gas can be eliminated as it requires a much higher oil gravity (>35⁰API) than the
Minnelusa formation offers (~25⁰API). Hydrocarbon gas injection could potentially be a suitable
method, but the team had concerns over dipping stratigraphy which was not recommended.
Carbon dioxide and other immiscible gas injection methods were eliminated due to unsuitable
oil viscosity and saturation. Thermal and mechanical EOR methods were dismissed due to
temperature and depth constraints, leaving polymer flooding as the best recommendation.
High temperature reservoirs break down the polymer structure and garner them useless to the
task at hand. Higher quality polymers are available, but cost effectiveness is paramount for
polymer flooding applications.
The primary goal in polymer water‐flooding is to enhance the viscosity of the flood water when
waterflood mobility is too high. Polymers, among other additives are mixed with water to
decrease mobility of the flood water. The EOR method effectively improves the sweep
30 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
efficiency of waterflood, but can sometimes contribute to permeability reduction as a result.
Chemical flood EOR strategies have been less common, however, polymer flooding continues to
be successful in improving oil sweeping efficiency. Polymer flooding techniques contribute little
to the world’s EOR production in contrast with thermal and gas injection applications. It is
believed reservoir wettability could have significant implications on polymer flooding success,
however the research to confirm such relationships is not yet fully developed. The main
constraint for polymer flooding EOR methods is economic feasibility and profitability.
Figure 27: Polymer EOR Flood [6]
Enhanced Oil Recovery Economics
According to Taber, Martin and Seright – EOR Screening Criteria revisited, “current high‐
molecular‐weight polymers often experience high retention and low propagation rates for rock
permeabilities less than 100mD”. As the subject reservoir holds an average permeability of
95mD, this is a potential concern. Lower molecular‐weighted polymers could provide relief to
this constraint. However, reducing the molecular weight of the polymer requires more polymer,
which will negatively impact the economics of the project. Another limitation this project may
encounter also concerns the subject reservoirs permeability limitations. The added polymers
31 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
make it increasingly difficult to maintain target injection rates. This problem can be mitigated
by hydraulically fracturing the injection wells, but this strategy would all but kill the project’s
economics.
As mentioned above, the most common project killer for polymer injection EOR methods is
economics. Before the specifics of the proposed polymer EOR plan are detailed, it is crucial the
reader understands the scope of the economic feasibility study. The goal was to ultimately
determine if implementing a polymer injection EOR project would be a profitable venture. If so,
at what oil price, and when the project would return on its investment. To achieve this goal, the
study investigated the required capital, operating cost, and revenue at various oil prices that
would be incurred on top of existing figures. That is, existing costs and revenues were
subtracted from the expected costs and revenues once the polymer flood is initiated. In order
to perform such an economic analysis, certain assumptions had to be made. Firstly, no
additional injection or production wells would be drilled. Secondly, because the Candy Draw
field is currently producing under a secondary waterflood mechanism, existing surface
equipment, facilities, utilities and other infrastructure can be utilized. Also, for simplicity, taxes
and petroleum revenue royalties were neglected.
The primary source that provided the project with approximations for what to expect in terms
of incremental capital and operating costs was a report published by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE), “Polymer Flooding Economics”, Sieberer, Jamek, Clemens, 2016. This source
was particularly reliable because it was published recently in April of 2016. The subject of study
was a reservoir located in Austria called the “8 TH Reservoir”. The team had confidence utilizing
this source as the 8 TH reservoir is very comparable in terms of well count, permeability and
area. Listed below in table 5 are the baseline costs they presented in Euros.
Table 5: 8 TH Reservoir, Austria Polymer Costs (Euros) SPE, Sieberer, Jamek, Clemens
These polymer costs (euros) were converted to American dollar figures using the April 29th,
2016 exchange rate of $1.14USD per Euro. The table below illustrated the incremental costs
expected for the Candy Draw field by utilizing the currency conversion and applying the
assumptions introduced above.
32 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Table 6: 8 TH Reservoir, Austria Polymer Costs Applied to Candy Draw, Wyoming
As illustrated in the table above the group estimated a capital cost of six million dollars in
capital expenditures to expand the existing facilities to accommodate the polymer flooding
project. This was acquired by estimating the facility expansion costs to be roughly twenty
percent of building the 8 TH reservoir facility from the ground up. Secondly, the team arrived at
an estimated increase of just over five hundred fifty thousand dollars in operating cost. Most of
this incremental operating cost is attributed to the cost of the polymer raw material as well as
water treatment and polymer separation of produced fluid.
A cost of just under four hundred thousand dollars per year was calculated based on the
injection rate of the five injector wells, multiplied by the converted polymer cost from the 8 TH
Reservoir study. The polymer, after currency conversion was calculated to be approximately
$3.50 per kilogram. A concentration of one kilogram of polymer per cubic meter of injected
water was acquired from our CMG dynamic modelling software simply by trial and error. When
developing the dynamic model the group tried various concentrations in an effort to determine
the concentration that would yield the most productive results. Additionally, an estimated
increase of two hundred thousand dollars was expected for the produced fluid treatment
required.
Return on investment (ROI) was calculated utilizing a relatively elementary economics formula:
ROI = Revenue ‐ Capital Cost ‐ Operating Cost
Equation 1: Return on Investment
Inserting the values discussed above:
By implementing a polymer waterflood EOR immediately (2016), our dynamic model was able
to provide us with the following production:
Table 7: Cumulative Polymer EOR Production – 2016 Startup
Figure 28: Annual Polymer EOR Production – 2016 Startup
As the field has already produced a total just shy of four and a half million barrels to date, a
cumulative production of 4.7 million barrels isn’t all that attractive. One can conclude the
reservoir pressure and production is too far depleted to be a good candidate for an EOR
project. After applying this increase of approximately a quarter million barrels of incremental
production to our economic calculations, the following figures were produced.
34 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Figure 29: Return on Investment ‐ 2016 Startup
As seen in figure 29 above, by implementing a polymer flooding EOR in 2016, the project will
not obtain any return on investment at a futuristic average oil price of forty dollar per barrel,
nor sixty dollars per barrel. With a futuristic average oil price of eighty dollars per barrel, a
return on investment can be expected in the year 2023, approximately seven years after
startup. Furthermore, a net profit of approximately two and a quarter million dollars could be
achieved after a ten year period.
After accomplishing the economic feasibility study of a polymer flooding EOR for a 2016
startup, the team decided to take it one step further. A new goal was set to determine what
kind of profits could be had if the polymer flooding EOR was implemented at an ideal time.
Looking back at the field decline analysis introduced earlier, a drawdown can be identified
merely a few short years after the secondary waterflood was implemented just before 1990.
35 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Figure 30: Annual Oil and Water Production
The team concluded that the first signs of that drawdown (~1994) might be an opportunistic
time to implement the proposed polymer flooding EOR project. In doing so, the team’s dynamic
model provided the production shown below.
Table 8: Cumulative Polymer EOR Production – 1994 Startup
If the proposed polymer flooding program was initiated in 1994, the field would see an increase
of approximately nine hundred thousand barrels of oil. Furthermore, this scenario would reach
this production ten years sooner than the 2016 startup.
36 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Figure 31: Annual Polymer EOR Production – 21994 Startup
Figure 32: Return on Investment ‐ 1994 Startup
By implementing the EOR program at the time the team concludes to be an ideal startup, the
incremental oil production would yield a return on investment almost immediately. Depending
on futuristic commodity prices, the project could yield profits of up to fifty million dollars.
37 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Based on the teams economic feasibility research detailed above, a few conclusions can be
made. Firstly, the 2016 startup scenario would not experience a return on investment unless
futuristic oil prices were greater than approximately seventy‐five dollars per barrel. However,
this return on investment would not be acquired until about seven to ten years into the EOR
project. A company considering such a project would be exposing itself to a great degree of risk
associated with commodity price.
38 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Summary
An important quality of any successful project team is the ability to work through issues as they
arise. The issues that have arisen with this project have been addressed and dealt with
accordingly by utilizing the risk mitigation strategies planned. A strategic plan was established
to ensure the team worked effectively, in collaboration, and that the project deliverables were
completed on time. Phase one of the project was completed last year and phase two is now
complete.
Through the team’s EOR research and screening, a polymer waterflood method was selected as
the most appropriate scenario for the Candy Draw field. Clear hydrocarbon and formation
properties were key in screening potential EOR methods. The polymer and required surface
infrastructure make balancing the project economics very challenging. The year 2016 has seen
oil prices stabilize around forty US dollars, and would need to recover substantially for the
2016‐startup venture to garner serious consideration.
If the EOR planning project were to be applied to a similar yet more virgin reservoir, results
would be substantially improved at a wider range of commodity price.
39 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Conclusions
According to EOR Screening Criteria revisited, Taber, Martin and Seright, the most appropriate
EOR method for the Candy Draw field is a polymer waterflood injection program.
For the ideal scenario, a polymer flood EOR startup in 1994 would supply incremental
production such that a return on investment could be achieved within the first couple years of
the project, depending on commodity price. Of course, the 1994 startup is not an option today,
but the results of this project can be applied to other ventures.
One final conclusion can be derived from the data. The team’s economic feasibility analysis
illustrates the benefits of implementing comparable polymer flooding EOR projects to similar
reservoirs that are in a more virgin state. The results show a stark contrast in profit in regards to
the timing of the EOR project. The team recommends reservoirs with less pressure drawdown
and production depletion when considering such an EOR planning project.
40 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Bibliography
[1]
"Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission." N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2015.
[2]
"Crisis Mapping and Cybersecurity ‐ Part II: Risk Assessment." Diary of a Crisis Mapper. N.p., 14
Dec. 2011. Web. 07 Dec. 2015.
[3]
"Petrel Software." Schlumberger Software. Schlumberger, n.d. Web.
[4]
"AAPG Datapages/Archives." Candy Draw. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.
[5]
"The Powder River Basin — A Root Contributor to Global Warming." WildEarth Guardians. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.
[6]
"Polymer Waterflooding." Petrowiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.
[7]
Taber, J. J., F. D. Martin, and R. S. Seright. "EOR Screening Criteria Revisited." New Mexico
Petroleum Recovery Research Center (2015): n. pag. Web.
41 | P a g e
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Appendices
Appendix #1: Well Data
Figure 33: Well Data [1]
A
PETE‐4735 Final Report Group #14
Appendix #2: Risk Matrix
Figure 34: Risk Matrix
B