Está en la página 1de 3

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY CASE STUDIES

North Ward Estes field C02 flood project


The North Ward Estes field, located in Ward and Winkler counties in West Texas, was discovered in 1929.
The dominant producing formation includes up to seven major reservoirs and is composed of very fine-
grained sandstones to siltstones, separated by dense dolomite beds. Within the 3,840-acre project area, the
following is known:
Average properties: Initial conditions:
Depth, ft, = 2,600. Water saturation, PV%, = 50.
Reservoir temperature, F, = 83. Reservoir pressure at gas/oil contact, psia, = 1,400.
Dykstra-Parsons permeability variation factor = 0.85. Oil viscosity, cp, = 1.4.
Porosity, PV%, = 16. Saturation pressure, psia, = 1,400.
Permeability, millidarcies, = 37. Oil formation volume factor, rb/stb, = 1.2.
Oil gravity, API, = 37. Solution gas/oil ratio, scf/stb, = 500.

Waterflooding in the field began in 1955 and has continued. Cumulative oil production is more than 320
million bbl (25% of stock-tank oil initially in place). CO2 flooding was implemented in early 1989 in a
project area comprised of six sections, located in the better part of the field. Flood patterns in sections 3 and
6 to 8 were 20-acre 5-spots, and sections 9 and 10 were 20-acre line drives. Estimated pure CO2 minimum
miscibility pressure was 937 psia.

The comprehensive approach taken for designing the CO2 flood project included the following:
1. Laboratory work. Extensive laboratory work was conducted to support the evaluation of the CO2
flooding for the North Ward Estes field project, including black oil PVT and oil/ CO2 phase behavior, and
slim-tube experiments for determining minimum miscibility pressure.
2. History matching. History matching was accomplished by reservoir simulation. Historical production
rates for the years 1929 to 1986 were utilized in the study. The reservoir simulator computed gas and water
production rates and reservoir pressures. The matches were obtained largely by layer permeabilities. During
history match, oil and water relative permeability curves were adjusted. To improve the prediction of the
estimated time for CO2 breakthrough at the producers, particular attention was paid to water breakthrough
time after the initiation of waterflooding.
3. Simulation of CO2 flood. A finite-difference, four-component, black oil simulator was selected for
history matching both primary and waterflood performance. This was followed by prediction of CO2 flood
performance for a multilayer 5-spot pattern.
4. CO2 injectivity test. A CO2 injectivity test showed no reduction in the injection rates during or after
injection, and no significant changes in injection profile during or after injection. CO2 falloff data was in
agreement with laboratory measurements from CO2 core floods.
5. Optimum economic slug size. Optimum economic slug size was found to range between 38% and 60%
hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) of CO2 injected.

Enhanced oil recovery simulation results. Performance predictions for the entire project area were based
upon the scale-up of the average pattern simulation results. The results are given below:
Recovery as of 1990 = 29% of original oil in place.
Primary and secondary waterflood recovery= 31% of original oil in place.
CO2 flood recovery = 8% of original oil in place.
CO2 slug size = 38% hydrocarbon pore volume.
Water-alternating-gas injection ratio = 1:l.
CO2 injection/water-alternating-gas cycle = 2.5% hydrocarbon pore volume.
CO2 utilization: Gross: 12 Mscf/stbo, Net: 4 Mscf/stbo

Page 1 of 3
Low-tension waterflood
A 5-acre, 5-spot pilot test of a low-tension waterflood process was undertaken in a previously waterflooded
Benoist sand in the Salem Field, Marion County, Illinois. This was joint Texaco Inc./Mobil Oil Company
test utilizing a Mobil-licensed process.

The Benoist sand in the pilot area is separated into upper and lower segments by a thin shale stringer. The
pilot was conducted in the upper layer only. The average properties of the pilot area are:
Porosity, PV%, = 14.8.
Permeability, millidarcies, = 87.
Upper layer pay thickness, ft, = 26.
Calculated oil saturation after waterflooding, PV%, = 30.
Oil viscosity at reservoir conditions, cp, = 3.6.
Oil in place in the 5.8-acre pilot area, stbo, = 50,000.
The process was comprised of the following:
1. 0.519 PV preflush of softened fresh water to displace the formation brine
2. 0.285 PV petroleum sulfonate surfactant slug
3. 0.305 PV polymer drive slug
4. 1.0 PV Salem field injection brine to provide the final drive

The pilot pattern is a 5.8-acre regular 5-spot inside a 20-acre regular 5-spot. The 20-acre pattern was used as
four backup injection wells for the pilot pattern producer surrounded by four chemical injectors (Fig. 1).
Two observation wells were located 67 ft and 164 ft from the injector in the east quadrant. These were used
to periodically collect samples for analysis of the chemical tracers injected at the four injectors.

A computer model simulating tracer and


surfactant flooding as used to evaluate pilot
performance. The 5-spot multilayer model
accounted for the following:
 Chemical transport involving dispersion,
adsorption, and partitioning.
 Flow of oil and water considering high
tension (immiscible) or low tension
(miscible-like), depending on the
chemical environment.
 Non-Newtonian flow of polymer solution
and permeability reduction because of
polymer adsorption on the rock.
Tracers –
 brine – pulsed neutron capture logs - Borax
 radioactive – GR logs – Carnotite

Fig. 1. Enhanced oil recovery pilot pattern

The comprehensive analysis of the pilot performance consists of the following:


 Analysis of the tracer concentration data to verify quadrant flow patterns, fraction of production
contributed by each quadrant, and vertical reservoir heterogeneity.

Page 2 of 3
 Estimation of chemical consumption based upon tracer and chemical breakthrough volumes and
concentration profiles at the observation and production wells.
 Comparison of simulated recovery performance with the measured results.

Results of the pilot performance evaluation are given as follows:


 Observation concentration data established that the low-tension waterflood process is capable of
displacing essentially all of the oil in place under the proper formation environment.
 Only 25% of the original expected recovery volume of the tertiary oil will be recoverable.
 Inadequate preflushing and greater petroleum sulfonate retention than indicated in the laboratory
tests contributed to lower-than-expected oil recovery (Fig. 2).

Even though pressure wave tests


showed similar communication
in all quadrants, only three of
four chemical tracers were
detected at the producer.

Unfavorable sodium bromide


retention might have been the
reason for its not showing up in
the producer.

Fig. 2. Cumulative oil production versus time.

Page 3 of 3

También podría gustarte