Foam Assisted WAG, Snorre Revisit with New Foam Screening Model
- Pavel Spirov (Aalborg University Esbjerg) | Svetlana Rudyk (Aalborg University Esbjerg) | Arif Khan
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, 20-22 February, Cairo, Egypt
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2012. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 4.5.3 Floating Production Systems, 5.4 Enhanced Recovery, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 1.6.9 Coring, Fishing, 4.3.4 Scale, 5.3.2 Multiphase Flow, 5.4.10 Microbial Methods, 5.2.1 Phase Behavior and PVT Measurements, 5.5.3 Scaling Methods, 3.2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing Design, Implementation and Optimisation, 5.2 Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, 5.6.5 Tracers, 2.3 Completion Monitoring Systems/Intelligent Wells, 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 5.4.2 Gas Injection Methods, 2.5.2 Fracturing Materials (Fluids, Proppant), 1.8 Formation Damage, 5.3.1 Flow in Porous Media, 6.1.5 Human Resources, Competence and Training, 5.7.2 Recovery Factors, 5.1.5 Geologic Modeling, 5.5.8 History Matching, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 5.1.1 Exploration, Development, Structural Geology
- 11 in the last 30 days
- 1,031 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 8.50|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 25.00|
This study deals with simulation model of Foam Assisted Water Alternating Gas (FAWAG) method that had been implemented to two Norwegian Reservoirs. Being studied on number of pilot projects, the method proved successful, but Field Scale simulation was never understood properly. New phenomenological foam model was tested with sensitivity analysis on foam properties to provide a guideline for the history matching process (GOR alteration) of FAWAG Pilot of Snorre Field (Statoil).
The aim was to check the authenticity of presented new foam model in commercial software whether it is implementable on a complex geological model for quick feasibility studies, either for onward practical pilot or as justification for more detailed technical study.
The simulation showed that Foam model is applicable. The mismatch between history and actual GOR in some periods of injection is due to the complexity of the fluid flows control inside reservoir. The way; how specific properties control the time of gas arrival and values of GOR are described. The analyses of the improvements in the injection schedule are shown.
With increasing number of CO2 and FAWAG methods in preparation worldwide, the use of the simulation contributes to more precise planning of the schedule of water and gas injection, prediction of the injection results and evaluation of the method efficiency. The testing of the surfactant properties allows making grounded choice of surfactant to use. The analysis of the history match gives insight in the physics of in-situ processes.
Detailed Qualitative analysis is presented for foam modeling against the FAWAG historical data that provides sharp idea of the behavior of Foam model for different foam factors, which in turn provides reasons for the unpredictable foam behavior in WFB Project and also serve as quick reference for future general foam pilot simulations at field scale.
1.1. Foam behaviour
Gas injection is used as a driving mechanism to enhance oil recovery. Because the gas has high mobility and penetrates where the injected water cannot, the unswept areas of oil reservoirs also contribute to the oil production. However, in numerous projects the early gas breakthrough mainly due to reservoir heterogeneity is the cause of many problems. Additionally, secondary gas caps can be formed. Foam injection can solve gas mobility control problems by delaying early gas breakthroughs, reducing gas oil ratio and store more gas in reservoirs building a bank behind oil Skauge et al.1 (2002).
The foam is generated when a gas passing surfactant in an aqueous phase generate a stable dispersion of gas bubbles and lamellae trains in the liquid. Hirasaki and Lawson2 (1985) observed that the bubbles of small size are less mobile than the bubbles of large size. Low foam density gives the fractionation of the flow whereas low foam viscosity makes tendency for fingering and channeling.
|File Size||1010 KB||Number of Pages||18|