01c Ior Screening Criteria Ohp

EOR-1c: GENERAL SCREENING CRITERIA
Basic Criteria
1) Current Oil-in-Place
A reliable estimate of the current Sor is probably the most important criterion to decide
whether to go for an EOR process. Obviously, a high Sor is often desirable, although
such is usually not the case! As a rule-of-thumb, an Sor$0.35 is desirable for most EOR
processes.
2) Past Performance History
The past is a good judge of the future. A good "background check" is essential as such
check will reveal whether reservoir will offer favorable characteristics for EOR
applications. Moreover, it will help develop a better understanding of the reservoir
geology and flow mechanisms. The general expectation is that a reservoir with a
trouble-some past is likely to have a trouble-some EOR future as well !
Gas Processes: Principles and Field Applications ! Hemanta K. Sarma ! General Screening Criteria - 1
3) Avoid extremes
Cautions must be applied in the following types of reservoirs:
-very high gross-to-pay ratio.
-small areal extent.
-highly heterogeneous, fractured/faulted reservoirs.
-thin pay with an extensive active aquifer.
-very high and low API gravity oils
-very deep and hot (for chemical processes) reservoirs.
4) Economic, geo-political and management policy criteria

Current oil prices and future geo-political scenarios will most likely dictate
management's decision to go ahead with EOR investments. For example, if the oil price
remains at its current low level, there is less chance of any chemical flooding getting
widespread field applications. However, government incentives such as tax and royalty
holidays may "entice"or change the view of the management.
Thus, in essence, the screening criteria include both technical and policy considerations.
Table 1: "Rule-of-Thumb" EOR Screening Criteria

EOR PROCESS
CRITERIA
POLYMER
CO2
IMMISCIBLE
CYCLIC
STEAM
STEAM
FLOODING
SAGD
IN SITU
COMBUSTIO
N
> 305
< 1220
< 1220
< 1220
>150 Limited
by pressure
> 100
> 100
> 100
> 10
Porosity, %
> 20
> 20
> 20
> 15
Net Pay Thickness, m
>6
>6
>6
>3
Formation type
ALKALINE
POLYMER
SURFACTAN
T
POLYMER
Sand
Depth, m
A-S-P
Temperature, 1C
< 82
< 82
< 82
< 82
Permeability, md
> 10
> 20
> 20
> 50
> 40
HC
MISCIBLE
NITROGEN
MISCIBLE
Limited by
pressure
> 457 Limited

by pressure
> 1370
IMMISCIBLE
GAS
> 40
> 30
> 30
> 30
> 50
> 50
> 50
Initial Pressure, kPa
> MMP
> 6900
< 17240
< 17240
< 17240
Current Pressure, kPa
> MMP
> 6900
< 17240
< 17240
< 17240
< 1000
> 825
825-1000
825-1000
Water Salinity, ppm

Water Hardness, ppm
< 100,000
< 100,000
< 100,000
< 100,000
< 5000
< 3000
< 3000
< 3000
Oil Density, kg/m
O @Reservoir, mPaAs
> 850
< 20
< 50
< 20
> 850
< 904
< 904
< 850
< 965
< 50
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 3000
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Bottom Water Present
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Fractures Present
Oil Mobility, md/mPaAs

Oil Content, fraction
Transmissibility,
mdAm/mPaAs
>3
> 4.6
> 0.5
> 0.5
> 800
> 0.5
Gas Cap Present
Active Water Drive
HOR-WELL
With Bottom
Water
> 50
Vertical Permeability, md
Clays Present
HOR-WELL
Sand
Limited by reservoir temperature
Oil Saturation, %
CO2
MISCIBLE
No
No
No
No
> 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
> 0.065
> 0.065
No
> 0.02
> 16
> 16
> 16
TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF SCREENING CRITERIA FOR EOR METHODS

Oil Properties
Detail
Table
in
Ref. 16
EOR
Method
Gravity
(oAPI)
Viscosity
(cp)
Nitrogen and
flue gas
>35_48_
<0.4`0.2`
Hydrocarbon
>23_41_
<3`0.5`
CO2
>22_36_a
<10`1.5`
1-3
Immiscible
gases
>12
<600
Micellar/
Polymer,
ASP, and
Alkaline
Flooding
Polymer
Flooding
>20_35_
<35`13`
>15
<150,>10
Combustion
>10_16P7
Steam
>8 to 13.5P7
Surface mining
7 to 11
<5,000
9
1,200
<200,000
9
4,700
Zero
cold flow
Reservoir Characteristics
Oil
Saturation
Formation
(% PV)
Type
Composition
Gas Injection Methods (Miscible)
High percent
>40_75_
Sandstone
of C1 to C7
or
carbonate
High percent
>30_80_
Sandstone
of C2 to C7
or
carbonate
High percent
>20_55_
Sandstone
of C5 to C12
or
carbonate
NC
>35_70_
NC
(Enhanced) Waterflooding
>35_53_
Light,
Sandstone
intermediate,
preferred
some organic
acids for
alkaline floods
NC
>50_80_
Sandstone
preferred
Thermal/ Mechanical
>50_72_
Some
High-porosity
asphaltic
sand/
components
sandstone
NC
>40_66_
High-porosity
sand/
sandstone
NC
>8 wt%
Mineable
sand
tar sand
Net
Thickness
(ft)
Average
Permeability
(md)
Depth
(ft)
Temperatur
e
(oF)
Thin unless
dipping
NC
>6,000
NC
Thin unless
dipping
NC
>4,000
NC
Wide range
NC
>2,500a
NC
NC if dipping
and/or
good vertical
permeability
NC
>1,800
NC
NC
>10_450_
>9,000`3,250
>200`80
NC
>10_800_b
<9,000
>200`140
>10
>50c
<11,500`3,500
>100_135
>20
>200_2.540_d
<4,500`1,500
NC
>10e
NC
>3:1
overburden to
sand ratio
NC
NC = not critical.
Underlined values represent the approximate mean or average for current field projects.
a
See Table 3 of Ref. 16
b>
3md from some carbonate reservoirs if the intent is to sweep only the fracture system.
C
Transmissibility > 20 md-ft/cpd Transmissibility > 50 md-ft/cpe See depth.
TABLE 3 -HYDROCARBON-MISCIBLE FLOODING

Description
Hydrocarbon-miscible flooding consists of injecting light hydrocarbons through the reservoir to form a miscible flood. Three different methods have been
used. The first-contact miscible method uses about 5% PV slug of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), such as propane, followed by natural gas or gas and
water. A second method, called enriched (condensing) gasdrive, consists of injecting a 10 to 20% PV slug of natural gas that is enriched with ethane through
hexane (C2 through C6), followed by lean gas (dry, mostly methane) and possibly water. The enriching components are transferred from the gas to the oil.
The third and most common method, called high-pressure (vaporizing) gasdrive, consists of injecting lean gas at high pressure to vaporize C2 through C6
components from the crude oil being displaced. A combination of condensing/ vaporizing mechanisms also occurs at many reservoir conditions, even
though we usually think that one process is dominant. Immiscible criteria are given in Table 3 of Ref 1.
Mechanisms
Hydrocarbon miscible flooding recovers crude oil by (1) generating miscibility (in the condensing and vaporizing gasdrive); (2) increasing the oil volume
(swelling); (3) decreasing the oil viscosity; and (4) immiscible gas displacement, especially enhanced gravity drainage with the right reservoir conditions.
Technical Screening Guides
Crude Oil
Gravity, oAPI
Viscosity, cp
Composition
Reservoir
Oil saturation, % PV
Type of formation
Net thickness
Average permeability
Depth, ft
o
Temperature, F
Recommended
Range of Current Projects
>23
<3
High percentage of light hydrocarbons
24 to 54 (miscible)
0.04 to 2.3
>30
Sandstone or carbonate with a minimum of fractures and
high-permeability streaks
Relatively thin unless formation is dipping
Not critical if uniform
>4,000
30 to 98
4,040 to 15,900
Temperature can have a significant effect on the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP); it normally raises the pressure
required. However, this is accounted for in the deeper reservoirs that are needed to contain the high pressures for the lean
gasdrives.
Limitations
The minimum depth is set by the pressure needed to maintain the generated miscibility. The required pressure ranges from about 1,200 psi for the LPG
process to 4,000 to 5,000 psi for the high-pressure gasdrive, depending on the oil. A steeply dipping formation is very desirable to permit some gravity
stabilization of the displacement, which normally has an unfavorable mobility ratio.
Problems
Viscous fingering results in poor vertical and horizontal sweep efficiency. Large quantities of valuable hydrocarbons are required. Solvent may be trapped
and not recovered in the LPG method.
TABLE 4 - CO2 FLOODING

Description
CO2 flooding is carried out by injecting large quantities of CO2 (30% or more of the hydrocarbon PV) into the reservoir. Although CO2 is not first-contact miscible with the crude
oil, the CO2 extracts the light-to-intermediate components from the oil and, if the pressure is high enough, develops miscibility to displace the crude oil from the reservoir (MMP).
Immiscible displacement are less effective, but they recover oil better than waterflooding (see below and Table 3 of Ref. 1 for immiscible criteria).
Mechanisms
CO2 recovers crude oil by (1) swelling the crude oil (CO2 is very soluble in high-gravity oils); (2) lowering the viscosity of the oil (much more effectively than N2 or CH4); (3) lowering
the interfacial tension between the oil and the CO2 oil phase in the near-miscible regions; and (4) generation of miscibility when pressure is high enough (see below).
Recommended
Crude Oil
Gravity, oAPI
>22
27 to 44
Viscosity, cp
<10
0.3 to 6
Composition
High percentage of intermediate hydrocarbons (especially C5 to C12)
Reservoir
Oil saturation, %PV
>20
15 to 70
Type of formation
Sandstone or carbonate and relatively thin unless dipping.
Not critical if sufficient injection rates can be maintained.
Depth and temperature
For miscible displacement, depth must be great enough to allow injection pressures greater than the MMP, which
increases with temperature (see Fig. 7 of Ref. 1) and for heavier oils. Recommended depths for CO2 floods of
typical Permian Basin oils follow.
Oil Gravity, oAPI
Depth must be greater than (ft)
For CO2-miscible flooding
>40
2,500
32 to 39.9
2,800
28 to 31.9
3,300
22 to 27.9
4,000
<22
Fails miscible, screen for immiscible*
For immiscible CO2 flooding (lower oil recovery)
13 to 21.9
1,800
<13
All oil reservoirs fail at any depth
At < 1,800 ft, all reservoirs fail screening criteria for either miscible or immiscible flooding with supercritical CO2.
Limitations
A good source of low-cost CO2 is required.
Problems
Corrosion can cause problems, especially if there is early breakthrough of CO2 in producing wells.
*All reservoirs with oils with gravities greater than 22oAPI can qualify for some immiscible displacement at pressures less than the MMP. In general, the reduced oil recovery will
be proportional to the difference between the MMP and flooding pressure achieved. [These arbitrary criteria have been selected to provide a safety margin of approximately 500
feet above typical reservoir fracture depth for the required miscibility (MMP) pressures, and about 300 psi above the CO2 critical pressure for the immiscible floods at the shallow
depths. Reservoir temperature is included and assumed from depth. See Fig. 7 of Ref. 1 and text for the depth/ temperature/ MMP relationship.]
TABLE 5 - NITROGEN AND FLUE-GAS FLOODING

Description
Nitrogen and flue gas are oil recovery methods that use these inexpensive nonhydrocarbon gases to displace oil in systems that may be either
miscible or immiscible depending on the pressure and oil composition. Because of their low cost, large volumes of these gases may be injected.
Nitrogen and flue gas are also considered for use as chase gases in hydrocarbon-miscible and CO2 floods.
Mechanisms
Nitrogen and flue gas flooding recover oil by (1) vaporizing the lighter components of the crude oil and generating miscibility if the pressure is high
enough; (2) providing a gasdrive where a significant portion of the reservoir volume is filled with low-cost gases, and (3) enhancing gravity
drainage in dipping reservoirs (miscible or immiscible).
Recommended
Crude Oil
Gravity, oAPI
Viscosity, cp
Composition
Reservoir
Oil saturation, % PV
Type of formation
Net thickness
Depth, ft
Temperature, oF
>35
<0.4
High percentage of light hydrocarbons

38 to 54 (miscible)
0.07 to 0.3
>40
59 to 80
Sandstone or carbonate with few fractures and high permeability streaks
Relatively thin unless formation is dipping
Not critical
>6,000
10,000 to 18,500
Not critical for screening purposes, even though the deep reservoirs required to accommodate the high
pressure will have high temperatures.
Limitations
Developed miscibility can only be achieved with light oils and at very high pressures; therefore, deep reservoirs are needed. A steeply dipping
reservoir is desired to permit gravity stabilization of the displacement, which has an unfavorable mobility ratio. For miscible or immiscible
enhanced gravity drainage, a dipping reservoir may be crucial to the success of the project.
Problems
Viscous fingering results in poor vertical and horizontal sweep efficiency. The non-hydrocarbon gases must be separated from the saleable
produced gas. Injection of flue gas has caused corrosion problems in the past. At present, nitrogen is being injected into large successful
projects that formerly used flue gas.
Group Exercise 5.1: (a)Make your choice for EOR method, with justification, for the following five reservoirs
(b)What additional data will you ask for and why?
Type
1 Carbonate
2 Sandstone
3 Sandstone
4 Sandstone
5 Sandstone
Depth, ft
9000
600
3000
3500
2500
Temp, deg C
200
70
85
95
80
Ca++,ppm
5000
500
1000
75
500
Mg ++, ppm
1000
50
100
25
100
100000
9000
7000
1500
15000
VDP
0.8
0.7
06
0.45
0.55
API
38
13
20
19
30
Viscosity, cP
1.2
2000
150
40
10
K, mD
10
3000
2000
2100
500
H, ft
150
120
15
25
30
So
0.45
0.5
0.65
0.65
0.3
Porosity
0.1
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.21
Pi, psi
3800
250
1500
1800
1300
Current P, psi
2500
100
1000
1200
1200
WOR, bbl/bbl
0.5
0.1
0.4
10
Salinity, ppm

01c Ior Screening Criteria Ohp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01c Ior Screening Criteria Ohp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EOR-1c: GENERAL SCREENING CRITERIA

4) Economic, geo-political and management policy criteria

Table 1: "Rule-of-Thumb" EOR Screening Criteria

Net Pay Thickness, m

> 457 Limited

Initial Pressure, kPa

Current Pressure, kPa

Water Salinity, ppm

Oil Density, kg/m

Bottom Water Present

Oil Mobility, md/mPaAs

Gas Cap Present

Active Water Drive

Limited by reservoir temperature

TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF SCREENING CRITERIA FOR EOR METHODS

TABLE 3 -HYDROCARBON-MISCIBLE FLOODING

Range of Current Projects

TABLE 4 - CO2 FLOODING

TABLE 5 - NITROGEN AND FLUE-GAS FLOODING

Range of Current Projects

You might also like