Management Approach for Gas Injection EOR, EOR Cyclic, and CO2 Storage Pilot Projects. Mark H.

Holtz, Mark_holtz@praxair.com, Dan Dalton, Dan_Dalton@praxair.com, Leonardo Pinzon, Leonardo_pinzon@praxair.com Praxair Abstract
Gas injection pilot project management is effective when 5 key steps are implemented. These 5 key steps to successful management are; 1) Initial reservoir characterization, 2) Monitoring program design, 3) Facilities design, 4) Proper implementation, 5) Postmortem evaluation. Reservoir characterization is executed with a work flow that integrates geophysics, geology, and engineering, at the scale needed for injection prediction. Monitoring program design must consider phase changes, collect fluid input and output data, determine reservoir conditions, and measure saturation changes. Facilities design always takes a safety first approach, covers injection equipment, well, and production equipment and considers the phase of the gas throughout the injection system. Proper implementation necessitates an on site safety plan, designated work flow, and continuous workflow process checking. Finally the critical step is a postmortem evaluation which assesses both the technical and logistical aspects of the project. This paper describes these necessary steps for successful pilot and gas cyclic injection in oil, gas, and brine bearing formations and can act as a best practices guide to mitigate risk when
implementing a project.

Introduction
Today there are a majority of fields which are at advanced stages of secondary recovery which could achieve reserve growth through the application of tertiary gas displacement recovery (GDR). Additionally, with the application of geologic CO2 storage to mediate atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions there is increased interest in pilot projects to inject CO2 into the subsurface to test carbon capture and storage (CCS). Both GDR and CCS need pilot injection projects to investigate assumptions made about the geologic character of the rock. Reserve growth in mature fields is obtained by managing a portfolio of petroleum assets. As the portfolio is managed a particular asset can stand out as having reserve growth potential. This asset then goes through a process to determine the appropriate reserve growth. The asset management process includes 5 basic steps (Fig. 1) and typically includes a pilot project to determine the viability of applying the chosen production process.

Figure 1: The 5 step asset management process include typically includes a pilot phase. Successful gas injection pilot projects are needed to assess the application of full field GDR EOR floods. For smaller scale cyclic EOR projects proper assessment is necessary for determining continued application in a reservoir. Furthermore, as large scale CO2 geologic storage project are designed, proper pilot injection projects will be a critical part of the analysis. CCS projects benefit from CO2 pilot injections. Before large capitol investments will be made the risk of geologic storage will need to be mitigated by test injections of CO2.in order to understand multi-fluid flow. The typical CO2 storage pilot has the following goals: Demonstrate storage capacity Measure flow capacity Create rational for storage permanence Construct subsurface model

Initial Reservoir Characterization

To determine the proper implementation of a pilot project, initial integrated reservoir characterization is necessary. A pilot should be designed to test the hypothesis of what the reservoir geologic and engineering character is like. A useful approach to obtain an integrated reservoir characterization model is described by Holtz and Hamilton, 1998 (Fig. 2). In this four step work-flow geology, geophysics, petrophysics, and engineering information is all integrated to construct a working reservoir model. This first step in pilot management results in a reservoir model which gives a prediction of how GDR will function in the reservoir.

Figure 2: The four steps to integrated reservoir characterization start with determining the reservoir architecture and becomes an iterative task as the reservoir model is constructed. This model can then be used to determine what gas displacement reserve growth application is to be tested and where in the field a pilot should be implemented. The model has both static and dynamic uses so that production predictions as a result of the injection can be preformed. Gas displacement reserve growth applications that may be applicable can be summarized into the following five categories: 1. Pressure Maintenance a. Pressure maintenance condensate and retrograde condensate rservoirs 2. Miscible Displacement 3. Immiscible Displacement a. Oil leg injection b. Gas cap gas 4. Gas Assisted Gravity Drainage 5. Mixed Gas Applications a. Driving agent for slug/buffer b. Mixed gases for density control

Monitoring Program Design

Because a pilot is an information gathering exercise a monitoring program to obtain data is very important. The goal of the monitoring program is to gather data that allows the evaluation of the pre injection prediction. Proper monotoring will result in gathering data on the critical reservoir unknowns. Monitoring is applied at injector and producers, and a dedicated monitoring well should be considered based on the uncertainty of the subsurface heterogeneity. The three major areas to design the monitoring program include:

1. Collect fluid input and out data

a. Volumes b. Down hole Injection and production profiles

2. Monitor reservoir conditions a. Real Time Temperature and Pressure Surveys 3. Measure hydrocarbon and water saturation change a. Down hole wire line saturation logs b. Volumetric recovery efficiency Firstly, a monitoring program collects data on the injected CO2 and in the case of EOR the produced fluids and gases. Injection rates, pressures, and temperatures are collected by injection equipment. The collected data should be a time-series so that all collected data is interrelated and build up pressures can be determined. All metering of this type should be preformed on an individual well basis. From this information cumulative injection volumes are calculated and pressure buildup analyzed. Importantly, it should also be determined what perforations open and taking the injected CO2. Down-hole tools can be use to qualitatively and quantitatively assess where the injected CO2 is going into the vertical reservoir profile. On the production side of EOR, volumes, and rates of fluids and gases are measured. Monitor reservoir temperature and pressure conditions allows an understanding of CO2 phase behavior in the reservoir. In EOR this will show if the injection is reaching the minimum miscibility pressure so that displacement recovery is maximized. For CCS it gives the density at which the CO2 is being stored. For both EOR and CCS these down-hole measurements result in data that should be compared and contrasted with the simulated predicted values to check how the reservoir model compares with what actually occurred. The goal of injecting of CO2 into the subsurface is to induce fluid saturation changes in the pore space. In the case of EOR hydrocarbon saturation should be reduced whereas in CCS CO2 saturation maximization is the goal. To monitor how much saturation change is occurring wire line tools should be run in the injection well and at producing wells. This monitoring can result in a quantitative measurement of saturation change in a vertical profile. Zones of higher change should be determined and the petrophysical characteristics of these zones understood. Volumetric sweep efficiency calculation is aided by having this information, and future economic viability of a flood understood. It is important to realize in designing a monitoring program that the use of some tools, well construction itself, and/or procedures will negate the ability to use other monitoring tools. Wellhead, packers, and tubing must be choosen which still allows the deployment of monitoring tools.

Facilities Design
For facilities design the goal is safety first and designing to meet injection targets and production predictions. The three areas of facilities design include: 1. Site preparation 2. Injection facilities a. Solvent delivery b. Pumping and storage equipment 3. Production facilities a. Fluid rate and volume measurement b. Fluid separation c. Fluid handling Site preparation typically includes pad predation, road construction and/or repair, as well as evaluation of power and water needs. The site needs to be able to accommodate both the mobilization and the residency of the equipment during the injection. The injection facilities design for a GDR pilot considers both gas delivery, and the pumping and storage equipment. To have the necessary gas on hand for the injection and at the volumes

designed for the location of the gas supply and the demand status for that gas must be determined. Additional supplies for the injection are planned for including diesel source and distribution. During this planning the gas source and the routing to the pilot location are determined and confirmed. The next part of the injection facilities design is determining and delivering the pumping and storage equipment. Pumping and storage equipment is chosen to meet the requirements set by the GDR pilot design. These design requirements include injection rates, wellhead and bottom-hole pressures, and gas injection temperatures. Rates at which one may want to inject the gas dictate the size of the pumping unit that will be needed to be brought on site. Pressures also determine the pump size. This can also effect the permitting that is required. Temperatures determine if a heating unit for the gas will be necessary. Along with this design is the timing needed to mobilize the equipment to the site and set up all the equipment. A typical injection equipment set up on a well site is displayed in figure 3. Production facilities will typically need to be altered to take into account increased gas-oil ratio with methane mixed with the injection. This includes fluid separation and handling and tying into the monitoring by setting up an approach to measure accurately the rates and volumes of fluids and gases. The amount of injected gas along with total gas should be measured.

Figure 3: Typical layout of a injection equipment that would be deployed at the well site for injecting CO2 in a pilot project.

Proper Implementation
Proper implementation of a pilot is a safely preformed injection that gathers the required data for evaluation. Rigorous management and organization skills, and importantly experience, lead to proper implementation. The three main areas to focus on include: 1. On site safety plan 2. Work flow design 3. Continuous process checking Continuous pressure monitoring in the storage tank, truck tank, flow monitoring at the wellhead A safely executed project doesnt occur by accident. A work flow design includes all tasks and importantly captures which tasks are interrelated. Continuous process checking keeps a project on course and on time. It will also allow management of a project to determine if a task is not accomplishing it necessary function so that adjustments can be made quickly, allowing a project to stay on schedule.

Postmortem Evaluation
The success of a pilot program depends on evaluating the information obtained. The pilot postmortem goals are to evaluate the predicted geologic, and engineering character in comparison

to what actually occurred. A pilot is a technical success when the subsurface character predicted is confirmed and/or new insights are generated. Covering the following 4 topics during the postmortem results in obtaining maximum value from a pilot. 1. Evaluate effectiveness of facilities 2. Determine success in executing the implementation plan 3. Postmortem evaluation of monitoring program a. Was the solvent injected at the designed conditions? b. How did the solvent move and work in the reservoir? c. What was the deviation from the predicted results and why? 4. Assessment of injection a. Buildup and falloff injection analysis Evaluation of the effectiveness of facilities used aids in scaling-up to full field operations. Determining success in executing the implementation plan allows for changing any operation issues that will hamper the success of a full field operation. It should also be noted if unexpected results occurred because of unknown reservoir character or from implementation. Issues to evaluate are such items as were design pressures, rates, and temperatures met. Evaluation of monitoring program has several aspects. Firstly, compare the information collected with the original design. Ask the question should more or other data have been collected. Evaluation will determine the type of pressure increases from wellhead to sandface that occur under the varying injection conditions. This aids in determining the needed wellhead pressures for the injection wells when implementing the full field flood. Lastly, a GDR pilot of this type results in both buildup and falloff injection data. These data are analyzed as a time series to determine parameters such as permeability-thickness and wellbore skin. This information aids completion practices, and pattern planning and fluid balancing in the full field operation.

Summary
The five key gas injection pilot project management steps maximize the ability to determine the feasibility of moving forward with an expanded project. Technical and economic goals for EOR projects can be assessed and for CO2 geologic storage projects pilot management will demonstrate storage capacity, measure injection capacity, and create a rational for storage permanence. The value of an EOR pilot is the knowledge it gives about a reservoirs ability to obtain reserve growth from the production application applied. Key reservoir parameters must be monitored that allow confirmation or explain deviation from predicted results. This knowledge is the real value of a pilot and the reduced risk from that knowledge.

References Holtz, Mark, H., and Hamilton, D. S., 1998, Reservoir characterization: methodology to identify reserve growth potential, in SPE International Petroleum Conference & Exhibition in Mexico, Proceedings: Society of Petroleum Engineers, p. 473485. SPE paper # 35434