See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288511869

Simulation Study of Hysteresis Effect of Relative Permeability on Oil Recovery

for WAG Process in One of Iranian Reservoirs

Data · February 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 308

4 authors, including:

Mohammad Amin Bagrezaie Peyman Pourafshary

Amirkabir University of Technology Sultan Qaboos University
5 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    99 PUBLICATIONS   565 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimization of SmartWater Shock Slug Injection in Carbonate Reservoirs View project

Nano-WAG Injection in carbonate reservoir View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Amin Bagrezaie on 28 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 th
The 8 International Chemical Engineering Congress& Exhibition (IChEC 2014)
Kish, Iran, 24-27February, 2014

Simulation Study of Hysteresis Effect of Relative

Permeability on Oil Recovery for WAG Process in One of
Iranian Reservoirs

M.A.Bagrezaie*,P. Pourafshary,S. Gerami,E. Sharifara

*Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University of Tehran
m.a.bagrezaie@gmail.com

Abstract
Complicated physics of multi-phase flows in porous environments in field scale is modeled by the
darcy formulation. Describing such models is possible through determination of relative
permeabilities for each flowing phases. It is evident that when the saturation of fluids undergoes
cyclic process, the hysteresis of relative permeabilities becomes important. In this paper the effect
of different three phase relative permeability interpolation models, relative permeability hysteresis
models and trap models are assessed during water alternate gas (WAG) injection using Eclipse 100
software. The dimension of studied static model is 25×25×36. In this model four production wells
and one injection model are placed based on five- spot well pattern. This reservoir is carbonate and
its containing fluid has the API of 34. The results show a significant variance in oil recovery
between the conditions where the hysteresis model is used and not used. It is also determined that
the process of WAG injection is sensitive to hysteresis models. Depending on hysteresis model
used, oil recovery might be up to 28.2% less than the condition where the hysteresis model is not
considered. Among these models the combination of Stone 2 three phase relative permeability
interpolation model and Carlson hysteresis model have the lowest estimate for reservoir oil
recovery. Therefore consideration of relative permeability hysteresis effect is essential in order to
have valid predictions for WAG injection processes.

Keywords: hysteresis models, interpolation models, water alternate gas injection (WAG)

Introduction
Darcy formula is usable for single phase flow but for multiphase flow it is just an empirical
approximation [1]. Relative permeabilities are key parameters to darcy like models for
multiphase flow and could be used to combine the complicated physics of multiphase flow.
Relative permeabilities should be considered as describing functions of different rock and
fluids, not just unique functions of fluid saturations [2,3].
In multiphase flow, hysteresis shows itself through dependency of wetting and non-wetting
phases relative permeabilities and capillary pressures on trapped saturations and the flow
which is unique for each drainage and imbibitions processes. In order to anticipate the
hysteresis behavior of oil or gas relative permeabilities we investigate the most common
relative permeability models in particular the interpolating models for oil and hysteresis
models.
Simulation Study of Hysteresis Effect of

Simulation
In order to simulate the behavior of reservoir fluid in different pressure and temperatures the
PVTi software was used. For the regression of laboratory data and software data the three
parameter SRK equation of state is used and the coefficients of the equation are changed to
match the laboratory data and could predict the behavior of reservoir fluid in different
reservoir conditions. Also the phase behavior of reservoir fluid in different pressure and
temperatures, changes in relative volume of fluid, dissolved gas in oil, oil and gas volume
factors as a function of pressure are obtained by matching the parameters of equation of state
with real lab data.The reservoir is simulated with Eclipse 100 software using petrophysical
parameters shown in table1. In this table, rock and fluid properties of the reservoir and other
key parameters used are summarized. There is no gas cap and aquifer present in the model.
The dimension of model is 25*25*36. Four producing wells and one injection well are
situated in the model in five-spot pattern. The wells are producing at a constant rate. The
simulation is performed for 20 years. The minimum bottom-hole pressure for each producing
wells is 1300 psi and the maximum injection pressure for each injection well is 7000 psi.
In this reservoir the water production limit is 0.6 because the surface equipments have the
capacity to separate water from oil up to this level. The maximum oil production for each
producing well is 5000 bbl per day. The dynamic model is designed in a way that if the water
cut of the producing well exceeds the determined value of 0.6 or the oil production becomes
less than 500 bbl per day, the well would be shut.A summary of static model characteristics is
presented in table2. The 3D schematic of the reservoir is also shown in figure1.
Table 1: reservoir characteristics
API 34 FVF,Rbbl/STB oil 1.39
Total thickness,ft 360 Water FVF, Rbbl/STB 1.01
GOR, Scf/STB 700 Oil Viscosity, cp 0.68
Rock Compressibility, ×10E-6,1/psi 2.8 Gas Viscosity ,cp 0.021
Water Compressibility, ×10E-6,1/psi 3.28 Water Viscosity ,cp 0.468
Oil density, lbm/ft3 53.35 Connate Water Saturation,% 0.2
Gas density, lbm/ft3 0.042 WOC,ftss 19000
Datum depth,ftss 16450 Reservoir Temperature, F 140
Average Reservoir Pressure @datum depth,psi 6200 Average Porosity,% 13
Reservoir Top Depth, ftss 16450

Table 2: characteristics of the static reservoir model

Block lengthin the direction ofX, feet 320 Moderatepermeabilityin thedirection ofZ, md 3.5
Block lengthin the direction ofY, feet 320 Block numberin the direction ofX 25
Block lengthin the direction ofZ, feet 10 Block numberin the direction ofY 25
Moderatepermeabilityin thedirection ofX, md 35 Block numberin the direction ofZ 36
Moderatepermeabilityin thedirection ofY,md 35 Moderate Porosity 13

Figure1: 3D schematic of reservoir with well in 5-spot pattern

 th
The 8 International Chemical Engineering Congress& Exhibition (IChEC 2014)
Kish, Iran, 24-27February, 2014
Results and Discussion
∑ Water alternating gas injection
Generally two important parameters are examined in WAG injection. One is injection period
and the other is WAG ratio. With sensitivity analysis performed, the best injection period is
365 days. WAG ratio is not examined because the amount of injection is determined
according to bottom-hole pressure. The ultimate recovery factor for the reservoir is 52.1%
which is 26.4% more compared to water injection.
∑ Effect of relative permeability models and hysteresis on simulation
ÿ Effect of three phase relative permeability models
The most famous three phase relative permeability models are Stone1, Stone2 and Baker.
Unfortunately in Eclipse 100 software there is no option for examination and use of Backer
model. Therefore in this paper, only the Stone1 and Stone2 model are examined. The oil
recovery of the reservoir, simulated using these two models is shown in figure2. The results of
Stone1 model are relatively similar to the results of Stone2 model. The only difference is that
the Stone1 model’s approximations of the amounts are higher. It is justifiable through
identical permeability figures .

Figure2: comparison of reservoir oil recovery for Stone1 and Stone2 models

ÿ Effect of hysteresis models

In this section the effect of permeability hysteresis in WAG simulation is examined. In the
analysis, the Killough, Carlson and three-phase WAG hysteresis model which is an extension
of Larsen and Skauge model are used. The Land coefficient used for these models is
considered equal to(1.2). Every possible condition from Carlson, Killough and three phase
WAG hysteresis models for gas phase and interpolation models for oil phase (Stone1 and
Stone2) are examined. The results are shown in table3.

Table3: reservoir oil recovery for all conditions

Case Recovery scheme Hysteresis model Interpolation model Land (C) Recovery (%) Difference from base case(%)

1 Water inj. None None - 37.4 -

2 WAG None Stone I 1.2 52.1 -
3 WAG Carlson Stone I 1.2 41.3 20.7
4 WAG Killough Stone I 1.2 43 17.5
5 WAG 3-Phase WAG Stone I
1.2 44.5 14.6
6 WAG None Stone II 1.2 49.1 5.8
7 WAG Carlson Stone II 1.2 37.4 28.2
8 WAG Killough Stone II 1.2 40 23.2
 Simulation Study of Hysteresis Effect of

ÿ Effect of Land coefficient

Most of the hysteresis models need the Land coefficient for determination of the amount of
trapped gas saturation in inverse flows. The Land coefficient is dependent on rock and fluid
properties and displacement process. Previous studies have shown that the amount of this
coefficient changes from 0.5 to 2. In this section the sensitivity of WAG simulation to Land
coefficient is examined. The simulation is conducted using three phase WAG hysteresis
model with different Land coefficients. In figure 3 the obtained recovery factors for different
amount of this coefficient are shown.

Figure3: comparison of reservoir oil recoveries with different Land coefficients

Conclusions
The obtained results show that the simulation of WAG process is sensitive to relative
permeability hysteresis correction and relative permeability models. Depending on hysteresis
model used, oil recovery prediction may be up to 28.2% less than the situation where
hysteresis is not considered. Among different relative permeability models, the combination
of Stone 2 and Carlson hysteresis models has the least estimate of reservoir oil recovery.
Injection of water after gas causes some of the gas to be trapped. Hysteresis models consider
this fact that all of the gas does not displace with water flooding. Gas entrapment causes a
reduction in mobility of gas which leads to less injectivity and therefore less sweeping
efficiency.In endpoints because of the reduction in oil saturation and because of the fact that
the Stone1 model gives higher numbers for oil relative permeabilities in lower oil saturations,
the recovery in generally more.The high amount of Land coefficient shows a reduction in
trapped gas. Reduction of the trapped gas and increase of the gas relative permeability leads
to an increase in gas mobility which leads to a better injectivity relative to oil and gas. This
then leads to an increase in recovery efficiency.In evaluation of cyclic processes like WAG,
HWAG, WAGa.WF, considering hysteresis models is necessary.

References
[1] R.E.Guzmán, G.Domenico, F.J.Fayers, K.Aziz, A.Godi, Three-phase flow in field scale
simulations of gas and WAG injections., SPE 28897(1994).
[2] E. J.Spiteri, R.Juanes, The impact of relative permeability hysteresis On the numerical
simulation of WAG injection., SPE 89921(2004).
[3] M. J. Oak, Three-phase relative permeability of water-wet Berea, SPE 20183(1990).

View publication stats