Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Trapped Gas, Relative Permeability and Residual Oil Saturation of an Oil-Wet Sandstone

Trapped Gas, Relative Permeability and Residual Oil Saturation of an Oil-Wet Sandstone

Ratings:

4.67

(3)
|Views: 1,241 |Likes:
Published by ari_si

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: ari_si on Jan 08, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/09/2014

 
Trapped Gas, Relative Permeability and Residual OilSaturation of an Oil-Wet Sandstone
1
J.G. Kralik, L.J. Manak, A.P. Spence, and G.R. Jerauld, ARCO
Abstract
An experimental dataset from preserved reservoir sandstone is used to demonstratefeatures important to oil-wet systems not usually included in three-phase relativepermeability models. They are described by a generalized version of the relativepermeability model developed by Jerauld (1997).The sandstone reservoir studied shows large amounts of spontaneous imbibition of oiland traps water during secondary drainage. Oil relative permeability is almost a functionof oil saturation alone while water relative permeability is significantly lower in thepresence of trapped gas. The trapped gas level depends on the relative amounts of oil andwater. While two-phase trapped gas values are consistent with values in the literature forsimilar sandstones, three-phase trapped gas levels are approximately half of two-phaselevels. Residual oil saturations after waterflooding and gasflooding followed bywaterflooding are roughly the same. Furthermore, the incremental oil production during awaterflood following gasflooding was minimal. Experiments run with different pressuredrops show that the low trapped gas saturations are not due to capillary desaturation. CTscans show that little redistribution of gas occurs during trapping.
Introduction
While much progress has been made in understanding two-phase flow for nonwater-wetsystems, the approaches to treating native-state systems in three-phase flow are lacking.Current approaches to three-phase flow in commercial simulators and laboratories arelargely based on water-wet systems. It is clear, however, that wettability should affectaspects of three-phase flow. Advances in understanding how wettability affects three-phase flow have been impeded by a lack of high-quality data. This paper presents data ona naturally oil-wet system that demonstrates many features important to three-phase flow.While many of these are not new, many are not well established. To our knowledge thereare no data sets covering the combination of circumstances addressed here.The data reported were taken to understand the incremental oil recovery of immiscibleand miscible water-alternating-gas (IWAG & MWAG) processes over waterflooding.Because the production of oil in the field of interest is limited by gas handling and, forconservation reasons, produced gas must be reinjected, the amount of gas trapped byvarious processes is equally important. Corefloods showed that residual oil saturation towaterflooding is minimally affected by the presence of trapped gas and therefore, unlikeMWAG, IWAG is ineffective at increasing oil recovery. Trapped gas experiments doneon extracted cores at room conditions and on preserved core after miscible flooding gaveresults similar to each other and other sandstones of similar porosity reported in theliterature. However, the trapped gas measured in three-phase flow is half that measured intwo-phase flow. Consequently, MWAG is differentially better as both an oil recovery anda gas storage process.
 
1 This paper is based on one prepared for the SPE Annual Tech. Conf. and Exh., Dallas, TX, 1-4 Oct. 2000. Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
 
2
Two lithologies are discussed in thispaper, the A- and C-sands. The A-sandconsists of very fine- to fine-grained,moderately to well sorted, quartzosesandstone deposited in a shallow marineenvironment. The C-sand consists of fine-grained to pebbly, bioturbated, poorlysorted, glauconitic sandstones deposited ina shallow marine environment.
Trapped Gas
. Figure 1 shows acomparison of gas saturation trapped bywater (
S
gt 
) measured on extracted C-sandplugs at room conditions with ones onfresh plugs with residual oil to miscibleflood (
S
orm
), as well as data measured onpreserved core in three-phase (3
φ
)immiscible flow at reservoir conditions. The data show that while
S
gt 
does dependstrongly on maximum gas
 
saturation
 
(
S
gmax
),
S
orm
does not change
S
gt 
within experimentaluncertainty. However, the
S
gt 
measured in 3
φ
flow is lower than that measured in 2
φ
flow.At the same
S
gmax
, the 2
φ
system has a
S
gt 
of roughly 20% while the 3
φ
value is 13%.Differences between zones do not explain the observation because 2
φ
data from zonesC1, C3 and C4 appear to be the same but different from 3
φ
data from C3.Figure 2 shows the same comparison for the A-sand.
S
gt 
data were measured onextracted plugs at room temperature and onpreserved core in 3
φ
flow at reservoirconditions. Again,
S
gt 
depends strongly on
S
gmax
. However,
S
gt 
measured in 3
φ
flow issignificantly lower than in 2
φ
flow. At
S
gmax
~25%, the 2
φ
 
S
gt 
~22% whereas the 3
φ
S
gt 
~11%. Differences between subzones donot explain the observation because the 2
φ
data from zone A3 appear to be the same asthose for zone A4, but are different than the3
φ
data. Also shown are the results of amiscible flood conducted on a preservedcomposite core where
S
gt 
is consistent withthe 2
φ
data. The experiment consisted of acontinuous, gravity-stabilized, multi-contact miscible displacement followed bya waterflood.Because the various experiments wereperformed on different samples, the
00.10.20.30.400.20.40.60.81S
gmax
S
gt
C4,with SormC4,Sorm=0C3,Sorm=0C1,Sorm=03ø Fit2ø Fit3ø dataLand C=4.22
Figure 1 Trapped gas data for C-sand. Three-phase datais from zone C3 and is 60% of two-phase values.
00.10.20.30.400.20.40.60.81S
gmax
S
gt
A4A3MI3-phase2ø Fit3ø FitLand C=4.89
Figure 2 Trapped gas vs. maximum gas for the A-sand.Three-phase data is 50% of two-phase values.
 
The datalabeled MI was generated at the end of a miscible floodand has S
orm
=12.3%.
 
3
lithological impact on
S
gt 
was evaluatedfurther by comparing the dataset to existingliterature. Three major factors influence thelevel of 
S
gt 
,
S
gmax
, the porosity, and thelevel of microporosity (Jerauld 1996).
S
gmax
was eliminated as a parameter in theanalysis by fitting the data from eachsample to a zero-slope Land curve (Jerauld1996) and to correlating the maximumtrapped gas, i.e.
S
gt 
for
S
gma
x
=1, with otherproperties. The current 2
φ
data and datafrom other sandstones correlate withporosity level (Figure 3). The A-sand dataare well within the scatter of data fromother sandstones. The C-sand data trendbelow average because of highermicroporosity levels. The agreementbetween the current and historical
S
gt 
dataimplies that the lower 3
φ
S
gt 
values are notlithological effects.
Experimental
Fluids.
 
Live oil (LO) was made by addingthe appropriate light ends to anaerobic stock tank oil (ASTO) to match a bottom holesample composition. Brine (STB) was madeby adding salts (2.56% TDS) to filtered (0.20
µ
m), degassed deionized water. The STBwas stored anaerobically. Live brine (LB)was made by multiple contacts withequilibrium gas at 155°F at the bubble point,2700 psi. The equilibrium gascomposition was obtained from thegas phase produced from a constantcomposition expansion of the LO to~10 psi below its bubble point. Thepertinent fluid properties are inTables 1-3.
Screening Plugs.
The A-Sand plugswere cut on location from a 10.2-cmlow invasion core with connate water saturation of less than 10%. These plugs were takenfrom the interior of the core using ASTO as the plugging fluid and were stored underASTO in sealed jars. The 10.2-cm C-Sand core was cut with bland water-based mud and
Table 1 Fluid Properties
Fluid
(°F)
P
(psia)
ρ
(g/cc)
µ
(cP)STO1605150.87908.494 ± 0.029STB 72 151.01510.953 ± 0.016LO16027700.79942.384 ± 0.065LB16027700.98560.427 ± 0.010
Table 2 Live fluid properties at 155°F for CT-scanned ofComposite C. The live oil was doped with 2.2 mass %iodonaphthalene to increase its CT number to that of live brine.
PropertyOilBrineGas
 B
i
(cc/cc, at 60°F, 1 atm)1.2191.0325.83E-3
 R
si
(cc/cc, at 60°F, 1 atm)79.722.50
µ
i
(cP)2.3840.4270.0185
ρ
i
(g/cc at 60°F, 1 atm)0.92591.0166.52E-3
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9100.10.20.30.4PorosityS
gtmax
 
Bourbie and Zinszner(1985)Chierici et al. (1963)Rock CatalogKatz et al.(1966)Declaud (1993)C SandA Sand
Figure 3 Maximum trapped gas vs. porosity level forextracted samples compared to literature values.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->