High-Mobility-Ratio Waterflood Performance Prediction: Challenges and New Insights
- Mridul Kumar (Chevron ETC) | Viet T. Hoang (ChevronTexaco Energy Research) | Cengiz Satik (Chevron ETC) | Danny H. Rojas (Chevron Corp.)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- February 2008
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 186 - 196
- 2008. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 5.4.1 Waterflooding, 5.1.1 Exploration, Development, Structural Geology, 5.2.1 Phase Behavior and PVT Measurements, 4.3.4 Scale, 6.5.2 Water use, produced water discharge and disposal, 5.8.7 Carbonate Reservoir, 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 5.6.4 Drillstem/Well Testing, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 5.4.6 Thermal Methods, 5.1.5 Geologic Modeling
- 6 in the last 30 days
- 1,995 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 10.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 30.00|
This paper presents the results of a comprehensive study to improve our understanding of high-mobility-ratio waterflood (HMRWF) and to improve performance prediction. Published data on heavy-oil water-injection field projects are limited. Several successful HMRWF projects have been reported, and they show significant oil recovery at high watercut. However, the range of reported recovery is large—waterflood recoveries of approximately 1 or 2% to 20% of original oil in place (OOIP) have been reported for similar reservoirs. Higher viscosities result in lower recovery.
Mechanistic studies using fine-scale simulations show that the viscosity (or mobility) ratio primarily controls oil recovery response, and that the recovery is lower at higher viscosity ratios. Further, viscous fingers dominate high-viscosity-ratio floods, and mobile water can significantly reduce recovery. Field-scale simulation results indicate that heterogeneity plays a more important role for a HMRWF than conventional waterfloods. The amount of primary production before the start of the waterflood has a larger effect on incremental oil recovery for high-mobility-ratio floods. Further, highly-correlated, thin, thief zones reduce recovery of HMRWF more severely, and rock wettability (relative permeabilties) strongly influences oil recovery. These results indicate that, in addition to reservoir geology, accurate viscosity and relative permeability measurements are essential for a reliable performance prediction.
Waterflood has been conducted in many high viscosity reservoirs in the past, and several water injection projects in high viscosity reservoirs are ongoing and planned around the world (Oefelein and Walker 1964; Jennings 1966; Roark 1960; Nelson 1976; Woodling et al. 1993; Jenkins et al. 2004; Adams 1982; Edgson and Czyzewski 1985; Kasraie et al. 1993; Smith 1992; Lim et al. 1993; Ko et al. 1995; Etebar 1995; Pallant et al. 1995; Foerster et al. 1997; Yang et al. 1998; Forth et al. 1996; Yao 1999; Hanafy 1999; Cook et al. 2000; Jayasekera and Goodyear 2000; Capeleiro Pinto et al. 2001). However, published data on HMRWF performance is limited and results are sometimes conflicting. Further, it has been postulated that some of the recovery mechanisms might be different (Cook et al. 2000). It is apparent from the literature that our understanding of HMRWF performance is inadequate.
This paper presents the results of a comprehensive study to provide improved insight into mechanisms governing HMRWF and to help to improve performance prediction. The specific objectives were to: (1) evaluate published field data, (2) determine key parameters that govern the process using analytical methods and fine-scale mechanistic numerical models, and (3) quantify the effects of reservoir heterogeneity on HMRWF field performance. Accordingly, the paper is divided into four parts. The first presents a review of published field data. Next, definitions of mobility ratio are examined and a preferred definition is proposed. This is followed by a fine-scaled mechanistic modeling of HMRWF to identify key parameters. Finally, field-scale simulations are conducted to delineate key differences between HMRWF and conventional waterflood.
|File Size||3 MB||Number of Pages||11|
Adams, D.M. 1982. ExperiencesWith Waterflooding Lloydminster Heavy-Oil Reservoirs. JPT 34(8): 1643-1650. SPE-100196. DOI: 10.2118/10196-PA.
Aronofsky, J.S. 1952. Mobility Ratio—Its Influence on Flood Patterns DuringWater Encroachment. Trans., AIME, 195; 15-24.
Capeleiro Pinto, A.C., Guedes, S.S., Bruhn, C.H.L., et al. 2001. Marlim Complex Development: AReservoir Engineering Overview. Paper SPE 69438 presented at the SPE LatinAmerican and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, 25-28March. DOI: 10.2118/69438-MS.
Chien, M.C.H., Tchelepi, H.A., Yardumian, H.E., and Chen, W.H. 1997. A Scalable Parallel Multi-PurposeReservoir Simulator. Paper SPE 37976 presented at the SPE ReservoirSimulation Symposium, Dallas, 8-11 June. DOI: 10.2118/37976-MS.
Cook, R.C.H., van den Broek, L.H.W.M., and Koelman, J.M.V.A. 2000. Waterflood Redevelopment of theMarmul Haima-West Reservoir, Oman. Paper SPE 59296 presented at the SPE/DOEImproved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 3-5 April. DOI: 10.2118/59296-MS.
Craig, F.F. Jr. 1971. Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding,Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas 3: 45-47.
Dake, L.P. 1978. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, 367-369. NewYork City: Elsevier.
Edgson, J.J. and Czyzewski, G. 1985. Production Evaluation of the VikingKinsella B Pool Unit No. 1. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. July/August 70-76.
Etebar, S. 1995. CaptainInnovative Development Approach. Paper SPE 30369 presented at the SPEOffshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, 5-8 September. DOI:10.2118/30369-MS.
Foerster, C.P., Lynch, K.W., Stramp, R.L., Werner, M.R., and Thompson, R.R.1997. West Sak Field Development:Analysis of a Marginal Project. Paper SPE 37946 presented at the SPEHydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, Dallas, 16-18 March. DOI:10.2118/37946-MS.
Forth, R., Slevinsky, B., Lee, D., and Fedenczuk, L. 1996. Application ofStatistical Analysis To Optimize Reservoir Performance. J. Can. Pet.Tech. 35 (8): 36-42.
Hanafy, H.H. 1999. Waterflooding of A Heavy Oil MarginalReservoir. Paper SPE 53133 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show andConference, Bahrain, 20-23 February. DOI: 10.2118/53133-MS.
Jayasekera, A.J. and Goodyear, S.G. 2000. The Development of Heavy Oil Fieldsin the United Kingdom Continental Shelf: Past, Present, and Future.SPEREE 3 (5): 371-379. SPE-65984-PA. DOI: 10.2118/65984-PA.
Jenkins, C., Al-Sharif, S., Harris, R., Weisgram, J., and Michel, D. 2004.Forty Years of Improved OilRecovery: Lessons From Low-Permeability Turbidities of the East WilmingtonField, California. Paper SPE 92036 presented at SPE International PetroleumConference in Mexico, Puebla, Mexico, 7-9 November. DOI:10.2118/92036-MS.
Jennings, H.Y. Jr. 1966. Waterflood Behavior of High ViscosityCrudes in Preserved Soft and Unconsolidated Cores. JPT 18(1): 116-120; Trans., AIME, 237. SPE-1202-PA. DOI:10.2118/1202-PA.
Kasrale, M., Sammon, P.H., and Jespersen, P.J. 1993. Field Development Options for aWaterflooded Heavy-Oil Reservoir. JPT 45 (9): 888-894.SPE-20049-PA. DOI: 10.2118/20049-PA.
Ko, S.C.M., Domier, D.B., and MacDermott, R.N. 1995. Waterflood Optimization of theBuffalo Coulee Bakken Heavy Oil Pool of Southwestern Saskatchewan. PaperSPE 30285 presented at the SPE International Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary,19-21 June. DOI: 10.2118/30285-MS.
Kumar, M. et al. 2001. Evaluation of IOR Methods for theBoscán Field. Paper SPE 69723 presented at the SPE International ThermalOperations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Porlamar, Margarita Island, Venezuela,12-14 March. DOI: 10.2118/69723-MS.
Larue, D.K. and Friedmann, F. 2001. Stratigraphic uncertainty in fielddevelopment studies: a conceptual modeling approach. The LeadingEdge 20 (1): 28-33. DOI: 10.1190/1.1438872.
Lim, F.H., Saner, W.B., Stilwell, W.H., and Patton, J.T. 1993. Steamflood Pilot Test inWaterflooded, 25-ft Tar Zone Reservoir, Fault Block II Unit, Wilmington Field,California. Paper SPE 26615 presented at the SPE Annual TechnicalConference and Exhibition, Houston, 3-6 October. DOI: 10.2118/26615-MS.
Miller, K.A. 2005. State of the Art of Western Canadian Heavy Oil WaterFlood Technology. Paper 2005-251 presented at the Canadian InternationalPetroleum Conference, Calgary, 7-9 June.
Nelson, K.C. 1976. WilmingtonTownlot Unit—Waterflood Implementation and Response. Paper SPE 6167presented at the SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, NewOrleans, 3-6 October. DOI: 10.2118/6167-MS.
Oefelein, F.H. and Walker, J.W. 1964. California Flood Yields ProfitableRecovery of Heavy Oil From Multilayered Reservoir. JPT 16(5): 509-514. SPE-699-PA. DOI: 10.2118/699-PA.
Pallant, M., Cohen, D.J., and Lath, J.R. 1995. Reservoir Engineering Aspects of theCaptain Extended Well Test Appraisal Program. Paper SPE 30437 presented atthe SPE Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, 5-8 September. DOI:10.2118/30437-MS.
Roark, G.E. 1960. Analysis of Waterflood Performance—Block VI Ranger Zone,Wilmington Field, Calif. JPT 12 (5): 45-51.
Smith, G.E. 1992. WaterfloodingHeavy Oils. Paper SPE 24367 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain RegionalMeeting, Casper, Wyoming, 18-21 May. DOI: 10.2118/24367-MS.
Willhite, G.P. 1986. Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson,Texas, 87-89.
Woodling, G.S., Taylor, P.J., Sun, H.H., Nguyen, Q.N., and Brix, T.R. 1993.Layered Waterflood Surveillance ina Mature Field: The Long Beach Unit. Paper SPE 26082 Paper presented at theSPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, 26-28 May. DOI:10.2118/26082-MS.
Yang, R., Yang, S., Zou, Z., Xhao, F., and Muhetaer, X. 1998. Tests of Conversion Into SteamStimulation Following Water Flooding in Karamay Conglomerate Oilfield.Paper SPE 50894 presented at the SPE International Oil and Gas Conference andExhibition, Beijing, 2-6 November. DOI: 10.2118/50894-MS.
Yao, C.Y. 1999. EconomicPilot-Floods of Carbonate Reservoir Using a Pump-Aided Reverse Dump-FloodTechnique. Paper SPE 52179 presented at the SPE Mid-Continent OperationsSymposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 28-31 March. DOI: 10.2118/52179-MS.