ADIPEC 2013 Technical Conference Manuscript/media/Files/technical_papers/2013/... · 1 ADIPEC 2013...
Transcript of ADIPEC 2013 Technical Conference Manuscript/media/Files/technical_papers/2013/... · 1 ADIPEC 2013...
1
ADIPEC 2013 Technical Conference Manuscript
Name: Majid Mohammadpour Faskhoodi
Company: Schlumberger
Job title: Senior Reservoir Consultant
Address: Calgary, AB, Canada T2P0G7
Phone number:
Email:
Category: EOR: Challenges and Lessons Learnt from Field Studies
Abstract ID: 687
Title: Feasibility Study of Gas Re-injection in Giant Carbonate Reservoir in the Middle East- EOR Application in A Green
Field (Case Study)
Author(s): Majid M. Faskhoodi, Ramin Bahraie, Xing Zhang, Janelle Simon and Qinglai Ni, Schlumberger; Tian Ping, Ou
Jin, Wong Lee Jean, Wen Daoming, Faisal Abdulla Mohamad; PetroChina
This manuscript was prepared for presentation at the ADIPEC 2013 Technical Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10-13 November 2013.
This manuscript was selected for presentation by the ADIPEC 2013 Technical Committee Review and Voting Panel upon online submission of an abstract by the named author(s).
Abstract
2
Introduction
Selecting a suitable formation reservoir for gas re-injection
T
3
Oil recovery mechanism and displacement efficiency under gas re-injection
4
’
Table 1 - Calculated MMPs Vs Observed MMPs
5
Defining and optimizing the composition of re-injected gas
OPTMIX and OPTDRY Gas
6
RAW and DRY Gas:
Optimization of gas injection parameters by using 2D and 3D sector models
7
Full field production performance forecast during gas re-injection
8
Table 2 - Gas Availability in the Field
Table 3 - Amount of available gas for 4 types of gases
Sensitivity analysis on full field model
9
Cap Rock Integrity Study using 3D Coupled Reservoir Geo-mechanical Modeling
10
–
–
–
–
11
12
The authors wished to thank PetroChina management for their support and permission to publish and present this paper
ROI: Reservoir Opportunity Index
Phi: Porosity
NTG: Net to gross
Perm: Permeability
Sw: water saturation
GOR: gas oil ratio
MF: mole fraction
JJ Taber, SPE, FD Martin, SPE and R.S. Seright, SPE, New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center; EOR Screening
Criteria Revisited- part 1; SPE 35385
W van Vark,S.K. Masalmeh, and J Van Drop, Shell Abu Dhabi, M. Abu Al Nasr and S. Al-Khanbashi, ADNOC; Simulation
Study of Miscible Gas Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery in Low Permeable Carbonate Reservoir in Abu Dhabi; SPE
88717
JJ Taber, SPE, FD Martin, SPE and R.S. Seright, SPE, New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center; EOR Screening
Criteria Revisited- part 2; SPE 39234
Saad F Alkafeef, SPE, and Alforgi M. Zaid, SPE, College of Technological Studies ; Review of and Outlook for Enhanced Oil
Recovery Techniques in Kuwait Oil Reservoirs; IPTC 11234
13
Ahmad Aladasani, SPE, Baojun Bai, SPE, Kuwait Oil Company & Missouri University of Science and Technology; Recent
Development and Updated Screening Criteria for Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques; SPE 130726
M Kabir SPE, P McKenzie, C Connell, SPE and T O’Sullivan, SPE, Santos Ltd; Gas Injection Technique to Develop Rim Oil,
Merreenie Field, Australia; SPE 50050
George J Stosur, SPE, Petroleum Consultant, J. Roger Hite, SPE, Business Fundamentals Group, Norman F. Carnahan, SPE,
Carnahan Corporation, Karl Millet, SPE, Consultant; The Alphabet Soup of IOR, EOR and AOR: Effective Communication
Requires a Definition of Tem; SPE 84908
J H Hyatt,l SPE and D.A. Hutchison, ExxonMobile Production Co; Enhanced Oil Recovery in East Texas; SPE 93631
X. Zhang and N. Koutsabeloulis, David Press and KwangHo Lee (2011). Dual-Permeability Model for Coupled Reservoir
Geomechanical Modeling: Application for Field Production Data, SPE 148078.
Dipankar Dutta, C.V.G. Nair, Xing Zhang, Khaqan Khan, Assef Mohamad-Hussein, Muhammad Yaser, David Press, Nasser
Faisal Al-Khalifa, Eman Hadad Eaid Faldi, and Nick Koutsabeloulis (2011). A 3D Coupled Reservoir Geomechanics Study
for Pressure, Water Production, and Oil Production Simulation: Application in Umm-Gudair Field, West Kuwait, SPE
147943.
Xing Zhang, Nick Koutsabeloulis, Tron Kristiansen, Kes Heffer, Ian Main, John Greenhough and Assef Mohamad Hussein
(2011). Modelling of Depletion-Induced Microseismic Events by Coupled Reservoir Simulation: Application to Valhall
Field, SPE 143378.
N. Koutsabeloulis and X. Zhang (2009). 3D Reservoir Geomechanical Modelling in Oil/Gas Field Production, SPE 126095.
X. Zhang, N. Koutsabeloulis and K. Heffer (2007). Hydro-mechanical modelling of critically stressed, faulted reservoirs,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 91: 31-50.
Figure 1 - ROI Map and sector locations
14
Figure 2 - Sector modeling
Figure 3 - EOS validating workflow
15
Figure 4 - Mole Fraction of Injected Gas vs. Saturation Pressure
Figure 5 - Pressure vs. Oil Recovery (MMP Calculation)
Figure 6 - Sector model with extended boundary
Sector 1
Extended Boundary
Extended Boundary
Area of
Interest
16
Figure 7 - Full field development planning workflow
Figure 8 - Infill producers/ injectors location
Figure 9 - Infill Producer/Injector schematic
Full Scale model
2D model
3D sector
model
17
Figure 10 - Effect of gas injection on production of infill producer
Figure 11- Field cumulative oil production (different gas types)
─── Raw
─── Dry
─── OPTMIX
─── OPTDRY
18
Figure 12 - Field cumulative oil production (different volume of injection)
Figure 13 - Field cumulative oil production (different starting time of gas injection)
─── GIR=85MMSCFD
─── GIR=150MMSCFD
─── GIR=200MMSCFD
─── GIR=250MMSCFD
─── GI Start @ 2015
─── GI Start @ 2017
─── GI Start @ 2020
19
Figure 14 - ND vs GI of 85 MMSCFD vs WAG injection
Figure 15 - ND vs GI of 150 MMSCFD vs WAG injection
20
Figure 16 - Illustration of cases studies 1 and 2, in terms of mechanical property uncertainty.
Figure 17 - Reservoir pressure evolution in gas injection Scenario two
.
y = 44.338e-8.243x
0
10
20
30
40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
GP
a
Porosity
Young's modulus
y = 57224e-7.521x
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
kP
a
Porosity
Cohesion Correlation
y = 37.701e-1.305x
0
10
20
30
40
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Deg
ree
Porosity
Friction angle
21
Figure 18 - Cap rock up-movement (m) and down-movement (m) in Gas Injection Scenario Two. Negative - downwards movement; positive - upwards movement.
Figure 19 -Predicted maximum uplifts at cap rock during Gas Injection Scenario One
22
Figure 20 - Predicted maximum uplifts at cap rock during Gas Injection Scenario One
Figure 21 - Predicted extensional stresses within cap rock in Gas Injection Scenario Two with the mechanical properties in Case 3