1887

Abstract

Summary

Improvement of oil recovery in smart water injection schemes has been shown to be affected by wettability alteration. This process reduces residual oil saturation, which in turn affects the microscopic sweep efficiency and leads to subsequent enhancement of overall waterflood performance ( ). Tight oil reservoirs are often associated with high clay content and significant cation exchange capacity (CEC) values ( ). CEC directly influences smart waterflood behavior as it controls ion exchangeability between the solid and aqueous phases, which in turn, regulates the double layer thickness and the wettability of the system ( ).

This paper is an extended study from in which only one static realization was analyzed. This practice may lead to a bias and unreliable result because we did not include the uncertainties into the system. Therefore, statistical analysis is used to reveal the smart waterflooding’s true potential. Furthermore, an “estimated effect” method is utilized to identify heterogeneity and CEC value effect. Smart waterflooding outperforms conventional waterflooding in both tight and very tight oil reservoirs in terms of oil recovery. Moreover, smart waterflooding also significantly decelerates the water cut (WCUT) trend by subduing the water relative permeability.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700264
2017-04-24
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Awolayo, A., Sarma, H., & Nghiem, L.
    (2017). A Comprehensive Geochemical-based Approach at Modeling and Interpreting Brine Dilution in Carbonate Reservoirs. Presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference, 20–22 February 2017. Montgomery, TX, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bethke, C.
    (2006). GWB Essentials Guide. Illinois, USA: University of Illinois.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Breeuwsma, A., Wosten, J., Vleeshouwer, J., Slobbe, V., & Bouma, J.
    (1986). Derivation of Land Qualities to Assess Environmental Problem from the Soil Survey. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 186–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dang, C.
    (2015). Mechanistic Modeling, Design, and Optimization of Low Salinity Waterflooding. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Ph.D. Thesis, University of Calgary.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Di, J., & Jensen, J.
    (2015). A closer look at pore throat size estimators for tight gas formations. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 1252–1260.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. GEM
    . (2015). GEM User Guide - Version 2015. Computer Modelling Group (CMG), 691.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hamon, G.
    (Feb 01 2016). Low-Salinity Waterflooding: Facts, Inconsistencies and the Way Forward.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Jerauld, G., Lin, C., Webb, K., & Seccombe, J.
    (2008). Modeling Low Salinity Waterflooding. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 11(6):1000–1012.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kadeethum, T.
    (2016). Understanding Uncertainties Using Performance Predictive Models for Smart Waterflooding. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: M.Sc. thesis, University of Calgary.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kadeethum, T., Sarma, H., & Maini, B.
    (2017a). Enhance Microscopic Sweep Efficiency by Smart Water in Tight and Very Tight Oil Reservoirs. Presented at SPE Canada Unconventional Resources,15 –16 Feb . Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2017b). A Novel Residual Oil Saturation and End Point Water Relative Permeability Prediction Model for Smart Waterflood Using a Stepwise Multivariable Regression Technique. Presented at SPE Latin America and Caribbean Mature Fields Symposium, 15–16 March 2017. Salvador, Bahia, Brazil: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kolodzie, S.Jr.
    (1980). Analysis of Pore Throat Size And Use of the Waxman-Smits Equation To Determine OOIP in Spindle Field, Colorado. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21–24 September. Dallas, Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/9382-MS
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Korrani, A. K.
    (2014). Mechanistic Modeling of Low Salinity Water Injection. Austin, Texas, USA: Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kozaki, C.
    (2012). Efficiency of Low Salinity Polymer Flooding in Sandstone Cores. In M.Sc. thesis. University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lager, A., Webb, K., Black, C., Singleton, M., & Sorbie, K.
    (2008). Low-Salinity Oil Recovery – An Experimental Investigation. Petrophysics, 49(1):28–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Martin, A., Solomon, S., & Hartmann, D.
    (1997). Characterization of petrophysical flow units in carbonate reservoirs. American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), 81 (5).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. McCain, W., & McCain, W. J.
    (1990). The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, second edition. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Morrow, N., Tang, G., Valat, M., & Xie, X.
    (1998). Prospects of Improved Oil Recovery Related to Wettability and Brine Composition. Journal of Petroleum and Engineering, 20(3–4):267–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Morrow, N., Valat, M., & Yidliz, H.
    (1996). Effect of Brine Composition On Recovery of an Alaskan Crude Oil By Waterflooding. Presented at Annual Technical Meeting, June 10 – 12. Calgary, Alterta: Petroleum Society of Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Nasralla, R. A., & Nasr-El-Din, H. A.
    (2014). Double-Layer Expansion: Is It a Primary Mechanism of Improved Oil Recovery by Low-Salinity Waterflooding?SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, doi: 10.2118/154334‑PA
    https://doi.org/10.2118/154334-PA [Google Scholar]
  21. Pittman, E.
    (1992). Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to Various parameters Derived From Mercury Injection—Capillary Pressure Curves for Sandstone. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bull, 76 (2): 191–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Rivet, S., Lake, L., & Pope, G.
    (2010). A Coreflood Investigation of Low Salinity Enhanced Oil Recovery. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 19–22 September. Florence, Italy: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Seilsepour, M., & Rashidi, M.
    (2008). Prediction of Soil Cation Exchange Capacity Based on Some Soil Physical and Chemical Properties. World Applied Science Journal, 3(2), 200–205.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Shalabi, E. W.
    (2014). Modeling the Effect of Injecting Low Salinity Water on Oil Recovery. Austin, Texas, USA: Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Tang, G., & Morrow, N.
    (1997). Salinity, Temperature, Oil Composition and Oil Recovery by Waterflooding. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 12(4):269–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Timur, A.
    (1968). An Investigation Of Permeability, Porosity, & Residual Water Saturation Relationships For Sandstone Reservoirs. The Log Analyst, 9(4).
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Willhite, G.
    (1986). WATERFLOODING SPE TEXTBOOK SERIES VOL. 3. Society of Petroleum Engineering.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Winoto, W., Loahardjo, N., Xie, S. X., Yin, P., & Morrow, N. R.
    (2012). Secondary and Tertiary Recovery of Crude Oil from Outcrop and Reservoir Rocks by Low Salinity Waterflooding. Presented at SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 14–18 April. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:doi:10.2118/154209‑MS
    https://doi.org/10.2118/154209-MS [Google Scholar]
  29. Xie, Q., Ma, D., Wu, J., Liu, Q., Jia, N., & Luo, M.
    (2015a). Low Salinity Waterflooding in Low Permeability Sandstone: Coreflood Experiments and Interpretation by Thermodynamics and Simulation. Presented at SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 11–13 August. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:doi: 10.2118/174592‑MS
    https://doi.org/10.2118/174592-MS [Google Scholar]
  30. (2015b). Potential Evaluation of Ion Tuning Waterflooding for a Tight Oil Reservoir in Jiyuan OilField: Experiments and Reservoir Simulation Results. Presented at SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 11–13 August. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:doi: 10.2118/174584‑MS
    https://doi.org/10.2118/174584-MS [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhang, Y., & Morrow, N.
    (2006). Comparison of Secondary and Tertiary Recovery with Change in Injection Brine Composition for Crude Oil/ Sandstone Combinations. Presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery. Tulsa, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhang, Y., Xie, X., & Morrow, N.
    (2007). Waterflood Performance by Injection of Brine with Different Salinity for Reservoir Cores. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 11–14 November. Anaheim, CA, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700264
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700264
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error