1887

Abstract

Summary

This paper presents the application of the calibrated values of the Todd and Longstaff's mixing parameter, ω, for miscible finite-sized slug WAG (FSS WAG) injection on a field scale. This work is an extension of the work of calibrating the mixing parameter value ( ) where Al-Haboobi showed there is a relationship between the value of ω with specific slug size and WAG ratio. The application on a field scale was through the use of a black oil simulator, Eclipse E100, and was designed to show the reservoir performance obtained using the calibrated values of ω for 1:1 WAG ratio at different slug sizes. Also, to compare the reservoir performance at the calibrated value with a full mixing ω =1 and with Todd and Longstaff's value = ⅔. Todd and Longstaff recommended a value of ⅓ to be applied on a field scale to take into account the effect of heterogeneity. However, the value of ⅔ is used in this comparison, because this comparison was established in the original work of calibrating the mixing parameter value ( ).

Two case studies were used to test the reservoir performance and the impact of the calibrated value of ω on the reservoir performance, a synthetic quarter five spot model and a semi-synthetic model (the Watt field model). The quarter five-spot model allowed the demonstration of some of the key features of FSS WAG injection in a 3D model without the additional complexity of multiple wells, horizontal producers, faults, and complex permeability and porosity distributions, such as those in the Watt field model.

The paper begins by presenting the models under study, their fluid properties and the grid-refinement study conducted on both models. Then, the paper provides the assumptions of applying the calibrated value of ω on a field scale. Finally, it shows the results and the impact of the calibrated value of ω on the WAG zone and the oil recovery factor.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900126
2019-04-08
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahmed, T.
    (2006) Reservoir engineering handbook. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Haboobi, Z. I. M.
    (2019) Calibrating the Todd and Longstaff's mixing parameter value for miscible finite sized slug WAG injection for application and optimisation on a field scale. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Heriot-Watt University.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Shuraiqi, H. S.
    (2005) Mechanisms of oil recovery via first contact miscible WAG injection. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Imperial college London.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnold, D., Demyanov, V., Tatum, D., Christie, M., Rojas, T., Geiger, S. and Corbett, P.
    (2013) ‘Hierarchical benchmark case study for history matching, uncertainty quantification and reservoir characterisation’, Computers and Geosciences, 50, pp. 4–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Awan, A. R., Teigland, R. and Kleppe, J.
    (2008) ‘A survey of North Sea enhanced-oil-recovery projects initiated during the years 1975 to 2005’, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, 11(3), pp. 497–512. SPE-99546-PA.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brodie, J. A., Jhaveri, B. S., Moulds, T. P. and Mellemstrand Hetland, S.
    ‘Review of gas injection projects in BP’. Paper SPE-154008-MS presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium (2012): Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, C. Y. and Meiburg, E.
    (1998) ‘Miscible porous media displacements in the quarter five-spot configuration. Part 1. The homogeneous case’, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, (371), pp. 233–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Christensen, J. R., Stenby, E. H. and Skauge, A.
    (2001) ‘Review of WAG field experience’, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, pp. 1–10. SPE-71203-PA.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Crogh, N. A., Eide, K. and Morterud, S. E.
    ‘WAG injection at the Statfjord field, a success story’. Paper SPE-78348-MS presented at the European Petroleum Conference (2002): Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dandekar, A. Y.
    (2013) Petroleum reservoir rock and fluid properties. CRC press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Erbas, D., Dunning, M., Nash, T. M., Cox, D., Stripe, J. A. and Duncan, E.
    ‘Magnus WAG pattern optimization through data integration’. Paper SPE-169167-MS presented at the SPE improved oil recovery symposium (2014): Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fayers, F. J., Blunt, M. J. and Christie, M. A.
    ‘Accurate calibration of empirical viscous fingering models’. ECMOR II-2nd European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery 1990, 1990.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Geoquest, S.
    2014. Eclipse 100 reference manual. Schlumberger Geoquest.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jhaveri, B. S., Brodie, J. A., Zhang, P. and Daae, V.
    ‘Review of BP's global gas injection projects’. Paper SPE-171780-MS presented at the 21st World Petroleum Congress (2014): World Petroleum Congress.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kang, P. S., Lim, J. S. and Huh, C.
    (2016) ‘Screening criteria and considerations of offshore enhanced oil recovery’, Energies, 9(1), pp. 44.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Minssieux, L. and Duquerroix, J.-P.
    ‘WAG flow mechanisms in presence of residual oil’. Paper SPE-28623-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (1994): Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mohagheghian, E.
    (2016) An application of evolutionary algorithms for WAG optimisation in the Norne Field. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Morais, H. L.
    (2012) Application of WAG and SWAG injection techniques in Norne E-segment. Master of Science Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology [Online] Available at: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:589680/FULLTEXT01.pdf (Accessed.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Shpak, R.
    (2013) Modeling of miscible WAG injection using real geological field data. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway [Online] Available at: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:644970/FULLTEXT01.pdf (Accessed.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Todd, M. R. and Longstaff, W. J.
    (1972) ‘The development, testing, and application of a numerical simulator for predicting miscible flood performance’, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 24(7), pp. 874–882. SPE-3484-PA
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Wilson, A.
    (2015) ‘Magnus water alternating gas pattern optimization through data integration’, Journal of Petroleum Technology67(6), pp. 117–119. SPE-0615-0117-JPT.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Zahoor, M. K., Derahman, M. N. and Yunan, M. H.
    (2011) ‘WAG process design–an update review’, Brazilian Journal of Petroleum and Gas, 5(2), pp. 109–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhang, P., Brodie, J. A., Daae, V., Erbas, D. and Duncan, E.
    ‘BP North Sea Miscible Gas Injection Projects Review’. Paper SPE-166597-MS presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition (2013): Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Zuo, L., Chen, Y., Dengen, Z. and Kamath, J.
    (2014) ‘Three-phase relative permeability modeling in the simulation of WAG injection’, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, 17(03), pp. 326–339. SPE-166138-PA.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900126
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900126
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