Eor Ior Course T Ahmed PDF

12/1/2011
Principals of
Secondary & Enhanced Oil Recovery
Dr. Tarek Ahmed
Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd
www.TarekAhmedAssociates.com
Tahmed@Mtech.edu
Professor Emeritus of Petroleum Engineering

Montana Tech of the University of Montana
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
OUTLINE
1. Introduction and Review of Basic Reservoir Engineering
2. Stages of Oil Recovery
3. Factors to Consider When Planning an IOR
4. Introduction to Secondary Recovery Methods
5. Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods
6. Equations of State and Compositional Modeling
7. Simulation
8. Team project: Developing and the Nameless Field
11/21/2011 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
1
12/1/2011
Segmented Stages of Oil Recovery
Three Stages:
1. Primary Recovery
2. Secondary Recovery
3. Tertiary (Enhanced) Oil Recovery

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Primary Oil Recovery:

describes the production of hydrocarbons under the natural driving mechanisms
present in the reservoir without supplementary help from injected fluids such as
gas or water.
Secondary Oil Recovery:

1. Refers to the additional recovery that results from the conventional
methods of water injection and immiscible gas injection.
2. Usually, the selected secondary recovery process follows the primary
recovery but it can also be conducted concurrently with the primary
recovery.
3. Before undertaking a secondary recovery project, it should be clearly
proven that the natural recovery processes are insufficient; otherwise
there is a risk that the substantial capital investment required for a
secondary recovery project may be wasted.
Tertiary (Enhanced) Oil Recovery:

is that additional recovery over and above what could be recovered by primary
and secondary recovery methods. Various methods of enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) are essentially
2
12/1/2011
Segmented Stages of Oil Recovery

Primary Recovery
Natural Flow Artificial Lift

Secondary Recovery
Improved Oil Recovery
Water Flood Gas Injection

(Pressure Maintenance)
(IOR)
Tertiary Recovery
Thermal Miscible Flood Chemical

EOR
• Steam • CO2 • Micellar-Polymer

• In-situ Combustion • Lean Gas • ASP
• Huff-and-Puff • LPG
• Polymer
• Hot Water •. N2
• SAGD • Air • Others
• Enriched Gas
EOR Assessment & Approach

1. Screening & Field Selection
2. Cost estimates
3. “Go or No-Go”
4. Experimental program and qualitative simulation
5. Pilot Study, Tracer Survey, and monitoring program
6. economic evaluation
7. “Go or No-Go”
8. Matching pilot data and quantitative simulation
9. Decision making “Go or No-Go”
10. Full Field simulation and Implementation
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
3
12/1/2011
IOR/EOR questions
1- What is the anticipated phase behavior between reservoir fluid and injectant ?
2- What is “Sorm”?
miscible 3- what is the mobility of phases ?
4- will process be first contact or multi-contact?
1- What is the remaining oil saturation after H2O, i.e. Sorw ?

immiscible 2- what is Sorg to immiscible gas?
3- Aquifer? Gas cap? Size? Strength?
1- What is the design of the chemical slug to reduce σ? Sorm ?!!!

2- To what extend will chemical interact with clays in the formation through
adsorption?
chemical 3- what is the salinity of the reservoir water and how it will impact the
effectiveness of the slug ?
4- How will mobility control of the oil bank and chemical bank accomplished ?
1- What is the polymer concentration necessary to provide mobility the control?

polymer 2- What is % of the polymer slug that will be adsorbed on the reservoir rock ?
1- What are the anticipated thermal losses in the wellbore, to cap and base rock?
Thermal 2- Can the thermal front be controlled in the reservoir?
Primary
5% OOIP
Primary
EOR Target 25% OOIP
45% OOIP
EOR Target
Secondary
90% OOIP
30% OOIP
Light Oils Heavy Oils
Target for different crude oil systems
4
12/1/2011
Residual Oil !!!!

What Does That Mean? and Why?
A. Wettability
B. Capillary Forces
C. Heterogeneity of the Reservoir

Rights Reserved
5
12/1/2011
Initial Reservoir Condition at Equilibrium
Initial Reservoir Condition at Equilibrium
6
12/1/2011
Wettability
11/21/2011
Consider the Displacement in a Single Pore
Displacement in Multiple Channels
Gas displaces oil from

High permeability channels
Capillary forces cause water to

Move ahead faster in low permeability
channel
11/21/2011
7
12/1/2011
Thread of the oil gets smaller at restricted points

A &B; where oil film subsequently breaks
Target Setting for Recovery Factors

1) Tertiary EOR can Contribute by 7-15% Increase in Ultimate Recovery, i.e.
P+S+T ≈ 45-65%. However, Vast Majority of Fields are below 40%.
2) How realistic is Setting a Target for RF > 70%? Can we do Better ?
3) The Key: a More Proactive Longer-Term minded Reservoir

Management Approach; that includes:
a) Understanding the HEALTH and Behavior of reservoir by analyzing
Early production data
b) Identify boundaries, un-drained and upswept areas
c) Improve fluid distribution mapping (avoid Average So) throughout the
life of the Field
d) May Require New Techniques
e) Very Important that you Start Planning VERY EARLY
11/21/2011
8
12/1/2011
Timing to Start Injection!
Flow Rate
Tertiary
Secondary
Primary
Oil Recovery
? ? Time
Oil Recovery Categories
For any IOR process, important issues to consider
A. Movable Oil or Residual Oil

B. Time to start project, secondary or Tertiary
C. Economics of the project
D. Given the reservoir rock and fluid properties; can the selected
process be used in the chosen reservoir, i.e. screening ?
Primary Secondary Tertiary
Rate
Time ? © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
9
12/1/2011
First Step for

A Successful for IOR Flood
Performing a Screening Test

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Process Crude Oil Reservoir

N2 & Flue Gas >35° API So: >40%
Formation: SS or carbonate with few fractures
<0.4 cp h: Relatively thin unless formation is dipping
High Cm K: Not Critical
D: >6000 ft
T: Not Critical
High Pressure Gas >23° API So: >30%

Formation: SS or carbonate with min fractures
Injection <3 cp h: Relatively thin unless formation is dipping
High Cm K: Not Critical
D: >4000 ft
T: Can have a significant effect on MMP
Miscible CO2 >22° API So: >20%

Formation: SS or carbonate
<10 cp h: Relatively thin unless dipping
High C5-C12 K: Not Critical
D: MMP=f(D,T)
Chemical (ASP; >20° API So: >35%

Formation: SS preferred
micellar, …etc) <10 cp h: Not Critical
ASP: organic acid K: >10md
D: <9000 ft
groups in the oil are
T: < 200° F
need
Polymer >15° API So: >50%
Formation: SS but can be used in carbonates
<100 cp h: Not Critical
K: >10 md
D: <9000 ft
T: <200° F
10
12/1/2011
Questions and Issues

1. How much oil remains at the end of primary and where is it?
– Volumes remaining in selected patterns
– Sor in selected Flow patterns
2. What factors control or limit recovery?

– Reservoir quality (k,Φ, …etc)
– Field maturity (current pressure, free gas,…etc)
– Operational effectiveness (availability of H2O/gas, capacity of surface
facilities, handling water production,..etc)
3. How can we improve recovery?
4. Plans after Secondary? EOR? Timing?
5. Sorm ? (Sor)res = f [ (Sor)core , M, V ] ?

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Brief Review of
Reservoir Engineering

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
11
12/1/2011
What is the Original-Oil-in-Place? What Tools are Used?

1. A geological/petrophysical study is the key in
understanding and answering the question
2. Supplemented by mathematical formulations; that
include:
- Material Balance Equation “MBE”
- Decline Curves Analysis
- Type Curves Analysis
OOIP from Volumetric & MBE calculations !!!!!!!

are they the same?

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
1- Material Balance Equation
GP Volume of Gas Cap

RP  m
Volume of Oil Zone
NP
Gas Cap
Unknowns:
N
m Oil
Zone
RP
12
12/1/2011
2- Decline Curves
b> 1 !!
When can be applied?
3- Type Curves
?
qDd
13
12/1/2011
Where is the current Oil-in-Place?
1. How the CURRENT oil saturation is distributed in the

reservoir; i.e. available oil for IOR Process?
2. Knowing the distribution is the Key for a successful IOR

3. Project.
4. The objective is to target remaining movable oil

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Adjustments to the
Remaining Oil Saturation
To account for:
1. The water influx zone
2. The expansion of the gas cap
3. Combined effect of water influx & gas cap expansion
4. Shrinking of the gas cap
5. The gas migration to form a secondary gas cap

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
14
12/1/2011
Pore Volume “P.V” = 7758 A hΦ

 N Boi 
N Boi = (P.V) (1 – Swi) ( P.V )   
 1 S wi 
remainingoil volume So 
N  N  Bp o
So   N Boi 
pore volume  
 1 S wi 
 N p  Bo
So  1 S wi  1  
 N  Boi
However; how this oil saturation is distributed in the

reservoir?
1- Oil Saturation Adjustment to Water Influx
 We W p Bw 
N  N  B p o   Sorw
So  1  S wi  Sorw 
 N Boi   We W p Bw 
    
 1 S wi  1  S wi  Sorw 
We W p Bw
P.V WIZ 
1 S wi  S orw
15
12/1/2011
2- Oil Saturation Adjustment Gas Cap Expansion
 Bg 
m N Boi  1
 Bgi 
P.V GIZ   
1  S wi  S org
  Bg 
 m N Boi   1 

N  N p  Bo    Bgi  S
 org
 1  S wi  Sorg 
 
So   
 N Boi   m N Boi   Bg 
       1

 1  S wi  1  S wi  Sorg   Bgi 
3- Oil Saturation Adjustment to

Gas Cap Expansion & Water Influx
  Bg  
 mNBoi   1 Sorg 
N  N p  Bo  
B
 gi 


We Wp Sorw 
1 S wi  Sorg 1 S wi  Sorw 
 
 
So   
  Bg  
 mNBoi  1 
NBoi   Bgi  We W p Bw 
 
1 S wi 1 S wi  Sorg 1 S wi  Sorw 
 
 
 
16
12/1/2011
Oil saturation adjustment for shrinking gas-cap:

The volume of oil lost as a result of oil migration to the
gas cap can also be calculated from:
Bg
[ G pc B g  m N Boi (  1 ) ] S org
B gi
Oil Lost 
( 1  S wi  S gr ) Boa
Where:
Gpc= Cumulative gas production from the gas cap, scf
Bg= Gas FVF, bbl/scf
You Must Consider:

Migration of oil to the Gas Cap !!
Oil saturation adjustment in

Gravity Drainage Reservoirs
Secondary gas cap
“Lost Residual Oil”
17
12/1/2011
So Adjustment for Gravity Drainage

Secondary gas cap pore volume; gives:
N Boi
[ N Rsi  ( N  N P ) Rs  N P R P ] B g  [ ]S gc
1  S wi
(P.V) SGC 
(1  S wi  S org  S gc )
Adjust the saturation equation to account for the migration of the evolved
gas to the secondary gas cap, to give:
N  N  Bp o  (P.V) SGC S org

So 
 N Boi 
   (P.V) SGC
 1  S wi 
Important Comment
In these types of reservoirs, the gravity effects result in

much lower producing gas-oil ratios than would be
expected from reservoirs producing without the benefit
of gravity drainage. This is due to the upstructure
migration of the gas and consequent higher oil
saturation in the vicinity of the completion intervals of the
production wells which should be used when calculating
the oil relative permeability “kro”.
18
12/1/2011
FACTORS TO CONSIDER
The following reservoir characteristics must be considered

when determining the suitability of a candidate reservoir for
IOR flood:
1. Wettability
2. Fluid properties
3. Lithology and rock properties
4. Heterogeneity of the Reservoir
5. Reservoir depth
6. Fluid saturations
7. Reservoir Uniformity and Pay Continuity
8. Primary reservoir driving mechanisms
1- Wettability
Wettability is one of the most important rock properties that must be
considered and accounted for when planning an IOR project.
Wettability significantly effects and controls the success or the
failure of the injection fluid. Waterflooding option is generally not
considered appropriate in Oil Wet Reservoir Systems
2- Fluid Properties
The physical properties of the reservoir fluids have pronounced effects
on the suitability of a given reservoir for further development by
immiscible fluid injection. The viscosity of the crude oil is considered
the most important fluid property that affects the degree of success of
an IOR project.
The oil viscosity has the important effect of determining the mobility
ratio that, in turn, controls the sweep efficiency.
19
12/1/2011
3- Lithology and Rock Properties

Reservoir lithology and rock properties that affect flood ability and success are:
Porosity
 Permeability (impact of thief zones)
 Clay content
 Net thickness
Tight reservoirs or reservoirs with thin net thickness possess water-injection problems
in terms of the desired water injection rate or injection pressure. The governing
relationship:
To deliver a desired
i
pinj  w injection rate
hk
The above relationship suggests that to deliver a desired daily injection

rate of iw in a tight or thin reservoir, the required injection pressure
might exceed the formation fracture pressure.
4- Heterogeneity of the Reservoir

The reservoir existing directional permeability and orientation of
natural/induced fractures can be effectively utilized when selecting the
flooding pattern to improved the EUR. Efforts (conducting traditional well
testing, pulse testing, tracer surveys,…etc) should be placed to properly
characterize the heterogeneity of the reservoir as a first preliminary step in
design a waterflood project.
Ky Ky
Kx Kx
Ky >>> Kx
20
12/1/2011
Injection-well Hydraulic Fracture Orientation
Improves sweep efficiency
5- Reservoir Depth
I. Maximum injection pressure will increase with depth. However, The
costs of lifting oil from very deep wells will limit the maximum economic
water–oil ratios that can be tolerated, thereby reducing the ultimate
recovery factor and increasing the total project operating costs.
II. a shallow reservoir imposes a restraint on the injection pressure that can
be used, because this must be less than fracture pressure. In waterflood
operations
There is a critical pressure (approximately 1 psi/ft of depth) that, if

exceeded, permits the injecting water to expand openings along fractures or
to create fractures. This results in the channeling of the injected water or the
bypassing of large portions of the reservoir matrix. Consequently, an
operational pressure gradient of 0.75 psi/ft of depth normally is allowed
to provide a sufficient margin of safety to prevent pressure parting.
21
12/1/2011
6- Fluid Saturations
In determining the suitability of a reservoir for waterflooding, a

high oil saturation that provides a sufficient supply of
recoverable oil is the primary criterion for successful flooding
operations. Note that higher oil saturation at the beginning of flood
operations increases the oil mobility (through Kro) that, in turn,
gives higher recovery efficiency.
7- Reservoir Uniformity and Pay Continuity
Substantial reservoir uniformity is one of the major physical

criterions for successful waterflooding. For example:
I. Thief zone will cause rapid channeling, high WOR, and

bypassing will develop. This zone must be located and
shut off
II. These thief zones will contain less oil than the other layers,
and their flooding will lead to relatively lower oil recoveries
than other layers.
22
12/1/2011
8- Primary Reservoir Driving Mechanisms
Six driving mechanisms basically provide the natural energy

necessary for oil recovery:
I. Rock and liquid expansion

II. Solution gas drive
III. Gas cap drive
IV. Water drive
V. Gravity drainage drive
VI. Combination drive
Driving Mechanism Oil Recovery Range
Rock & liquid expansion 3–7%
Solution Gas drive 5 – 30 %
Gas Cap 20 – 40 %
Water drive 35 – 75%
Gravity drainage <80%
Combination drive 30 – 60%
23
12/1/2011
I. SOLUTION GAS DRIVE

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
24
12/1/2011
II. GAS-CAP DRIVE
11/21/2011
25
12/1/2011
Size of the Gas Cap
Gas Cap
Oil
Zone
Oil recovery
Volume of Gas Cap

m
Volume of Oil Zone
Managing Gas Cap Drive reservoirs
26
12/1/2011
III. WATER DRIVE
IV. Gravity Drainage Drive
Factors that affect ultimate recovery from gravity drainage reservoirs

are:
1- permeability in the direction of dip
2- dip of the reservoir
3- reservoir producing rates
4- oil viscosity
5- relative
11/21/2011 permeability characteristics (lab does not consider it)
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights
Reserved
27
12/1/2011
To maximize the oil recovery by gravity segregation; Qo

should not exceed a Critical Maximum oil Rate to allow
gas migration
What is the Maximum Oil Rate to Ensure

Counter Flow?
qo
Secondary gas cap
“Lost Residual Oil”
28
12/1/2011
Production should not exceed a critical maximum rate of

gravity drainage .The maximum rate of gravity drainage is
defined as the “rate at which complete counter-flow exists”
and mathematically by the following expression:
7.83x10 6 k k ro A (  o   g ) sin( )
qo 
o
This calculated value of “qo” represents the maximum oil rate that should not
be exceeded without causing the gas to flow downward.
Where:
qo = oil production rate, bbl/day
ρo = oil density, lb/ft3
ρg = gas density, lb/ft3
A = cross-sectional area open to flow, ft2
k = absolute permeability, md
α = dip angle.
Comment; can be unrealistic

Class Problem:
An oil reservoir is produced under gravity drainage driving
mechanism with the following fluid and reservoir
characteristics:
Oil density = 49 lb/ft2
Gas density = 8 lb/ft2
Oil viscosity = 2.3 cp
Cross sectional area = 24,000 ft2
K= 120 md
Kro = 0.85
Dip angle = 60 degree
Calculate the maximum oil rate that should not be

exceeded for counter flow
29
12/1/2011
Reservoir Pressure and GOR Trends
Understanding your Reservoir Driving

Mechanisms

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
30
12/1/2011
MBE is an Essential Tool; don’t forget to use
 cw S wi  c f 
N Boi 1 m    pi  p  W B G B

 
N Bt  Bti  Nm Bti Bg  Bgi / Bgi We W p Bw
   1 S wi 

inj w

inj ginj
1
A A A A A A
with:
A = Np [Bt + (Rp – Rsi) Bg]
DDI + SDI + WDI + EDI + WII+ GII = 1.0

Most efficient

 

N Bt  Bti  Nm Bti Bg  Bgi / Bgi We W p Bw
1
A A A
A = Np [Bt + (Rp – Rsi) Bg]
We W p Bw
A
We W p Bw
A
31
12/1/2011
Parameters to Consider When Selecting

Optimum Time to Start an IOR Project
1. Reservoir oil viscosity
2. Cost of injection equipment.
3. Productivity of producing wells.
4. Effect of delaying investment
5. Oil saturation
6. Free gas
11/21/2011
1- Reservoir oil viscosity.

Fluid injection should be initiated when the reservoir pressure reaches its
bubble-point pressure since the oil viscosity reaches its minimum value at this
pressure. The mobility of the oil will increase with decreasing oil viscosity,
which in turns improves the sweeping efficiency.
Rs
Bo
µo
pb
0
32
12/1/2011
Effect of oil viscosity on mobility ratio
λoil
µo
µob
pb k ro k rs
o  & w 
o s
Best :
s  o
2- Cost of injection equipment.

at higher pressures, the cost of injection equipment increases. Therefore,
a low reservoir pressure at initiation of injection is desirable.
3- Productivity of producing wells.

A high reservoir pressure is desirable to increase the productivity of producing wells,
which prolongs the flowing period of the wells, decreases lifting costs, and may
shorten the overall life of the project.
4. Effect of delaying investment on the time value

of $$.
A delayed investment in injection facilities is desirable from this standpoint.
33
12/1/2011
5- Oil Saturation
The principal requirement for a successful fluid injection
project is that sufficient oil must remain in the reservoir
after primary operations ; e.g. starting waterflood at a
higher pressure.
High residual oil saturation after primary recovery is essential not only
because there must be a sufficient volume of oil left in the reservoir, but also
because of relative permeability considerations. A high oil relative
permeability, i.e., high oil saturation, means more oil recovery with less
production of the displacing fluid.
11/21/2011
Distribution of the remaining So is a

MAJOR Problem
I. High So improved mobility; i.e. higher kro
II. High So required to develop an oil bank
III. High So required to improve sweep efficiencies
Questions:
A. Average Remaining Oil Saturation; What does it mean?
B. How you identify areas with high So?
C. How you select areas for infill drilling ?
34
12/1/2011
Pore Volume “P.V” = 7758 A hΦ

 N Boi 
N Boi = (P.V) (1 – Swi) ( P.V )   
 1 S wi 
remainingoil volume So 
N  N  B p o
So   N Boi 
pore volume  
 1 S wi 
 N p  Bo
So  1 S wi  1  
 N  Boi
How this oil saturation is distributed in the reservoir;

where is the Movable Oil?
MBE on a well-by-well basis !

However; Simulation is a key answer
6- Effect of Free gas saturation.
A. In water injection projects. It is desirable to have initial

gas saturation, possibly as much as 10%. This will
occur at a pressure that is below the bubble point
pressure (probably unrealistic)
B. In Miscible or Immiscible gas injection projects; zero

gas saturation in the oil zone is desired. This occurs
while reservoir pressure is at or above bubble-point
pressure.
35
12/1/2011
Effect of trapped gas on waterflood recovery
Free Gas
Free Gas SS
gi
gi
Initial Oil Soi
Initial Water Saturation Swi
11/21/2011
No trapped gas
Sorw Free Gas Sgi
Oil Bank Initial Oil Soi
11/21/2011
36
12/1/2011
With Trapped Gas
Trapped Gas Sgt

Shrw Free Gas Sgi
Oil Bank Initial Oil Soi

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Sorw
Shrw
37
12/1/2011
38
12/1/2011
a5
S gt  a1  a 2 S gi  a3 S gi2  a 4 S gi3 
S gi
a
S or  a1  a 2 S gt  a3 S gt2  a5 S gt3  5
S gt
Coefficients Equation (14-1) Equation (14-2)
a1 0.030517211 0.026936065
a2 0.4764700 0.41062853
a3 0.69469046 0.29560322
a4 -1.8994762 -1.4478797
a5 -4.1603083 x 10-4 -3.0564771 x 10-4
Class problem
An oil reservoir is being considered for further

development by initiating a waterflooding project.
The oil–water relative permeability data indicate
that the residual oil saturation is 35%. It is
projected that the initial gas saturation at the start
of the flood is approximately 10%. Calculate the
anticipated reduction in residual oil, ΔSor , due to
the presence of the initial gas at the start of the
flood.
39
12/1/2011
The waterflood recovery can possibly be improved if a so-called

“optimum gas saturation” is present at the start of the flood.
This optimum gas saturation is given by:
0.001867 k 0.634Bo0.902
S 
g opt
 0.352 0.166
 So   S wi 
     1.152
 o   w 
(Sg)opt = Optimum gas saturation, fraction
So , Swi = oil and initial water saturations, fraction
o , w = oil and water viscosities, cp
k = Absolute permeability, md
Bo = Oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
 = Porosity, fraction
The above correlation is not explicit and must be used in conjunction

with the material balance equation (MBE). The proposed methodology of
determining (Sg)opt is based on calculating the gas saturation as a
function of reservoir pressure (or time) by using both the MBE and the
proposed expressions. When the gas saturation as calculated by the two
equations is identical, this gas saturation is identified as (Sg)opt.
0.001867 k 0.634Bo0.902
S 
g opt  0.352 0.166
 So   S wi 
     1.152
 o   w 
Pressure Bo o MBE
Psi BBL/STB cp So Sg = 1- So - Swi (Sg)opt
1925 1.333 0.600 0.700 0.000 --
1760 1.287 0.625 0.628 0.072 0.119
1540 1.250 0.650 0.568 0.132 0.122
1342 1.221 0.700 0.527 0.173

40
12/1/2011
But; there is a problem

Variable Bubblepoint Pressures !!!
Gas
Oil
11/21/2011
Sg
 S o  Pore Volume   
 S gt Pore Volume 
  RS   
 Bo   Bg 
Rsnew 
So  Pore Volume
Bo
 S g  Bo   N p  Bo
RSnew  RS     So  1 S wi  1  
  N  Boi
 S o  Bg  
11/21/2011
41
12/1/2011
Again; Important Equations

(porevolume) (1  S wi )
N
Boi
N Boi
Pore Volume 
1  S wi
So 
N  N  B p o
 N Boi 
 
 1  S wi 
 N B
S o  (1  S wi ) 1  P  o Sg = 1 – So - Swi
 N  Boi
11/21/2011
Class Problem:
The Big Butte Field is a solution gas-drive reservoir that is under consideration
for a waterflood project. The volumetric calculations of the field indicate that the
areal extent of the field is 1612.6 acres. The field is characterized by the
following properties:
oThickness h = 25 ft
oPorosity = 15%
oInitial water saturation Swi = 20%
oInitial pressure pi = 2377 psi
Results from the MBE in terms of cumulative oil production Np as a function of
reservoir pressure are given below:
Pressure Np
Psi MMSTB
2377 0
2250 1.10
1950 1.76
1650 2.64
1350 3.3
42
12/1/2011
The PVT properties of the crude oil system are tabulated below:
Pressure Bo Rs Bg
psi Bbl/STB scf/STB bbl/scf
2377 1.706 921 --
2250 1.678 872 0.00139
1950 1.555 761 0.00162
1650 1.501 657 0.00194
1350 1.448 561 0.00240
1050 1.395 467 0.00314
750 1.336 375 0.00448
450 1.279 274 0.00754
Assume that the waterflood will commence when the reservoir

pressure declines to 1650 psi; find:
1- the pressure that is required to dissolve the evolved gas.
2- the pressure that is required to dissolve the trapped gas.
Simulation is the key
I. Calculations should be performed for

several assumed times and the net
income for each case determined.
II. The scenario that maximizes the profit and

perhaps meets the operator’s desirable goal
is selected.
43
12/1/2011
Fundamentals of
Waterflooding

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Considerations & Requirements

When
Planning Onshore or Offshore IOR Project

11/21/2011 Rights Reserved
44
12/1/2011
Considerations When Planning an

IOR Flood
1. Purpose of the flood
2. Onshore or Offshore
3. Defining the Aquifer
4. Permeability Consideration, kx,ky, and kz
5. Optimum Time to Start the Flood

Consideration #1: Purpose for Onshore or Offshore; same:
A. Maintaining the reservoir pressure

B. supplementing partial/strong natural water drive !!!
C. Displacing oil
Offshore; What do you know about the reservoir?
Oil Oil
Aquifer
Aquifer
45
12/1/2011
Consideration #2: Offshore vs. Onshore Field Development
Onshore:
Discovery well is
tied back to the
nearest production
facilities and
Oil Rate
produced at high
rate at continuous
basis
Offshore:
Discovery well can
not produced at
continuous basis
since the offshore
production facilities
are not in existence
Time
Offshore Appraisal Stage

“No Continuous Flow”
Oil Oil
Aquifer
Aquifer
Minimum information?
Major question deals with the aquifer
(strength, communication, etc)
46
12/1/2011
Onshore:
Discovery well is tied back to the nearest production facilities and
produced at high rate at continuous basis to provide a positive cash flow
from day one. The most important advantage; however, it permits to
observe and evaluate the reservoir under dynamic conditions.
Continuous production creates a pressure sink at the discovery well which
propagates radically and vertically throughout the formation. With
subsequent appraisal/development well is drilled, the conducting of DST
and RFT will provide with the degree of areal and vertical communications
that are ESSENTIAL in:
A. Planning a secondary recovery and scale of the process

B. Estimation of the strength of the natural driving
mechanism
Offshore:
Appraisal wells can not produced at continuous basis since the
offshore production facilities are not in existence. Perhaps
adequate data may be collected with each appraisal well;
however, it might be the lowest quality because they are
collected under purely STATIC conditions. No adequate data
are collected under DYNAMIC CONDITIONS (few thousands
bbl during DST) to allow:
A. Degree of the areal and vertical communications within

the formation
B. Strength and type of the natural driving mechanism
47
12/1/2011
Consideration #3: The Aquifer Problem (Basel or Edge):
A. Degree of communication; radial and vertical

B. Degree of communication with Aquifer!!!
C. Strength of the Aquifer
Oil
Aquifer Aquifer
Aquifer
ϴ
Basel Waterflood Edge Waterflood

Consideration #4: Permeability:
1. With high “K”, large oil accumulations can be developed with relatively
few wells; with more importantly fewer production platforms in offshore
reservoirs
2. Offshore Platforms usually have finite lifetime which leads to the fact that
maximizing oil recovery (function of “k”, tight or permeable) is required
before any significant mechanical deterioration occurs. Decision is
based on:
3. Value of remaining recoverable oil vs. cost of platform refurbishing

Selection of flood pattern and infill drilling locations are very strong
function of permeability distribution
48
12/1/2011
Consideration #5: Time to Initiate the Flood
A. Start the flood above Pb; at Pb or below Pb ?

B. Effect of oil viscosity on mobility ratio
C. Effect of trapped gas on waterflood recovery
Effect of oil viscosity on mobility ratio
λoil
µo
µob
p displacingFluid w
M 
b displacedFluid o
Mobility Ratio “M”:
k rw S o
M wBT
k ro S wi
w
11/21/2011
49
12/1/2011
Controlling Parameters for a

Successful IOR Process
The magnitude of the reduction and mobilization of residual oil saturation and
improving the sweep efficiency by any IOR process is controlled by the
following two major factors:
1) Capillary Number “NC” ; Question is: how to increase?
 k   p 
N   o 
c     L 
 
2) Mobility Ratio “M”, Question is: how to reduce it?
 displacing (k rw /  w )  k rw   o 
M     
 displaced (k ro / o )  k ro   w 
1) Effect of NC on residual oil saturation

1.0
( S or ) after Range of
Waterflood
( S or ) before
0
Critical Nc  k   p 
N   o 
c     L 
 
σ is the only practical way of increasing NC

Increase ∆p/L
50
12/1/2011
2) Effect of Mobility Ratio on Sweep Efficiency
M     
51
12/1/2011
Flooding Patterns
I. Objective: provide the injection fluid with the

maximum possible contact with the crude oil system
II. Strategies: convert existing production wells to
injection wells, or drill “infill” injection wells
III. Factors that need to be considered:
– Reservoir heterogeneity and directional permeability
– Direction of formation fractures
– Availability of the injection fluid (gas or water)
– Desired and anticipated flood life
– Maximum oil recovery
– Well spacing, productivity, and injectivity
Injection Wells Placement Requirements:

1. Take advantage of directional permeability,
fractures, dip,…etc
2. Provide sufficient fluid injection rate to yield the
desired production rate
3. Maximize recovery with minimum production of
the injected fluid
4. In most cases, require a minimum of new wells
(usually; the target field has been developed)
52
12/1/2011
Leases are divided into square miles and quarter square miles
5280 ft
Well Spacing
40-acre for oil wells
160-320 ac for gas wells
16 wells per section (1 sq-mile)© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Essentially four types of well arrangements are used in fluid

injection projects:
Irregular injection patterns

Peripheral injection patterns
Regular injection patterns
Crestal and basal injection patterns
106
53
12/1/2011
1- Irregular Injection Patterns

Could be caused by:
a) a planned, irregular pattern of vertical wells
b) irregular surface or subsurface topology
c) inclined wells
d) faulting
e) localized variations in porosity or
permeability
11/21/2011
2- Peripheral Injection Patterns

In peripheral flooding, the injection wells are located at the
external boundary of the reservoir and the oil is displaced
toward the interior of the reservoir, as shown below
Producer
injector
108
54
12/1/2011
Forms of Peripheral and Central Flooding Patterns

Characteristics of the Peripheral Flood:

1. Relatively small number of injectors compared with producers.
Generally yield maximum oil recovery with minimum produced
water.
2. Significant water Production can be delayed until only the last row
of producers remains.
3. Results from peripheral flooding are more difficult to predict than
other patterns.
4. For a successful peripheral flood, “k” must be large enough to
permit the movement of the injected water at the desired rate
over the distance of several well spacing from injection wells to
the last line of producers.
5. Because of the unusually small number of injectors compared with
the number of producers, it takes a long time for the injected
water to fill up the reservoir gas space. The result is a delay in the
field response to the flood
6. Injection rates are generally a problem because the injection
wells continue to push the water greater distances.
55
12/1/2011
3- Regular Injection Patterns

Due to the fact that oil leases are divided into square miles and quarter
square miles, fields are developed in a very regular pattern. A wide variety of
injection-production well arrangements have been used in injection projects.
The most common patterns are:
a) Direct line drive.

b) Staggered line drive.
c) Five spot.
d) Seven spot.
e) Nine spot.
111
3- Regular Injection Patterns
Direct Line Staggered Line Drive Seven-Spot

Drive
The patterns termed inverted have only one injection well per
pattern. This is the difference between normal and inverted well
arrangements. © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
56
12/1/2011
A. Direct line drive.

The lines of injection and production are directly opposed to each other.
The pattern is characterized by two parameters:
a = distance between wells of the same type
d = distance between lines of injectors and producers.
B. Staggered line drive.
The wells are in lines as in the direct line, but the injectors and producers
are no longer directly opposed but laterally displaced by a distance of a/2.
C. Five spot.
This is a special case of the staggered line drive in which the distance
between all like wells is constant, i.e., a = 2d. Any four injection wells thus
form a square with a production well at the center.
D. Seven spot.
The injection wells are located at the corner of a hexagon with a production
well at its center.
E. Nine spot.
This pattern is similar to that of the five spot but with an extra injection well
drilled at the middle of each side of the square. The pattern essentially
contains eight injectors surrounding one producer.
113
4- Crestal and Basal Injection Patterns

In Crestal Injection, as the name implies, the injection is through wells
located at the top of the structure. Gas injection projects typically use
a crestal injection pattern. Traditionally; a combination of Crestal and
Basal Injection (injection at the bottom of the structure) are used to
improve sweep efficiency. Many water-injection projects use basal
injection patterns with additional benefits being gained from gravity
segregation.
57
12/1/2011
SWEEP EFFICIENCIES
• Areal Sweep Efficiency “EA”
• Vertical Sweep Efficiency “EV”
• Displacement Sweep Efficiency “ED”

Recovery Performance
Recovery Performance of an IOR Flood is based

On:
1. Displacement Efficiency “ED”
2. Areal Sweep Efficiency “EA”
3. Vertical Sweep Efficiency “EV”
Implicitly input to simulation models

in a form of a number of
“Zonation or layering system”
11/21/2011
58
12/1/2011
Oil Recovery Equations for Any

IOR Process
Cumulative Oil Production:

NP = Ns EA EV ED
Recovery Factor:
RF=(NP /Ns) = EA EV ED
Volumetric Sweep Efficiency:

Evol = EA EV
The displacement efficiency ED

is the fraction of movable oil that has been
displaced from the swept zone at any given time or
pore volume injected. Because an immiscible gas
injection or waterflood will always leave behind
some residual oil, ED will always be less than 1.0.
S oi  S o
ED 
S oi
59
12/1/2011
The areal sweep efficiency EA

is the fractional area of the pattern that is swept by the
displacing fluid. The major factors determining areal sweep are:
a) Fluid mobilities
b) Pattern type
c) Areal heterogeneity
d) Total volume of fluid injected
Areal Sweep Efficiency:

A
Swept Area
“A”
A
EA 
T otalArea
Ky
Kx
Line Drive
Ky
Kx
5-Spot
60
12/1/2011
The vertical sweep efficiency EV

is the fraction of the vertical section of the pay zone that is contacted by
injected fluids. The vertical sweep efficiency is primarily a function of:
a) Vertical heterogeneity
b) Degree of gravity segregation
c) Fluid mobilities
d) Total volume injection
Vertical Sweep Efficiency

A
EV 
Cross Section Area k1
k2
The problem is k3
AA
its defined by “the USER”;
5,10,…,25-layer system !!!! k4
Volumetric Sweep Efficiency
Swept area
EA
Swept area
EV
Volumetric Sweep Efficiency = EA EV

61
12/1/2011
Displacement Sweep Efficiency
Areal Sweep Efficiency
In general, reservoir heterogeneity has more

influence than any other factor on the
performance of a secondary or tertiary injection
project. The most important two types of
heterogeneity affecting sweep efficiencies (EV
and EA) are:
The Reservoir Vertical Heterogeneity; and

The Reservoir Areal Heterogeneity.
62
12/1/2011
Vertical Heterogeneity
“Stratification” is by far the most significant parameter influencing
the vertical sweep and in particular its degree of variation in the
vertical direction; i.e. permeability variation “V”
Water injected into a stratified system will preferentially enter the

layers of highest permeability (thief zone s are major problems)
and consequently, a significant fraction of the less-permeable zones
will remain unflooded.
Operators spend millions of dollars coring, logging, and drilling

appraisal wells, all of which permits direct observation of vertical
heterogeneity. Therefore, if the data are interpreted correctly, it
should be possible to quantify the vertical sweep “EV” quite
accurately; however; determining optimum number of layers for
simulation could be a problem (fine to coarse)
Areal Heterogeneity
Areal heterogeneity includes areal variation in formation
properties and geometrical factors; such as:
1. position and nature of sealing faults

2. boundary conditions due to the presence of an aquifer
or gas cap.
3. direction of fractures
4. Principle axis of permeability “kx & ky”
5. Porosity, permeability, and net thickness variations
Areally, matters are much more uncertain since methods of

defining heterogeneity are indirect
63
12/1/2011
All three efficiency factors (i.e., ED, EA,

and EV) are variables that increase during
the flood and reach maximum values at
the economic limit of the injection project.
Understanding Sweep Efficiencies

And Oil Recovery
Simple Equation: NP = Ns EA EV ED ; What is the problem
then?
ED , E A , EV are functionsof S s !!!
Swept area
EA
Swept area
EV
64
12/1/2011
I. DISPLACEMENT EFFICIENCY

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
I. DISPLACEMENT EFFICIENCY
Displacement efficiency is the fraction of movable oil that has been recovered from
the swept zone at any given time. Mathematically, the displacement efficiency is
expressed as:
volumeof oil at startof flood  remainingoil volume

ED 
volumeof oil at startof flood
     S oi   S o 
Pore Volume  Soi   Pore Volume  So     
B
 oi  B
 o B  B 
ED    oi   o 
   S oi 
Pore Volume  Soi   
 Boi   Boi 
Assuming constant Bo
S oi  S o (1  S wi )  (1  S w ) S w  S wi
ED   ED 
S oi 1  S wi 1  S wi
average remaining oil &water saturation in the swept area

65
12/1/2011
Class Problem
A saturated oil reservoir is under consideration to be waterflooded
immediately after drilling and completion. Core analysis tests indicate
that the initial and residual oil saturations are 70 and 35%, respectively.
Assuming that Bo will remain constant throughout, calculate:
1- The displacement efficiency when the oil saturation is reduced

to 65, 60, 55, 50, and 40%
2- Maximum displacement efficiency that can be achieved during the

project life
3- The displacement efficiency under miscible displacement with an

estimated Sorm of 10%;
Last example shows that ED will continually increase with

increasing water saturation in the reservoir. The problem, of
course, lies with developing an approach for determining
the increase in the average water saturation in the swept
area as a function of cumulative water injected (or injection
time), i.e:
S w  S wi
ED 
1  S wi
Buckley and Leverett (1942) developed a well established
theory, called the frontal displacement theory, which provides
the basis for establishing such a relationship. This classic
theory consists of two equations:
1. Fractional flow equation

2. Frontal advance equation
66
12/1/2011
Fractional flow equation

Based on:
1) Water Cut “fw”
2) Darcy’s Equation

Rights Reserved
Water and Oil Cut
qw q
fw   w
qw  qo qt
f o 1  f w
67
12/1/2011
Darcy’s Equation
Ak   p 
q 
   x  p1 p2
 Ak
q x  p

L P2
 Ak
q 
0
x
 
p1
p L
 Ak
qL ( p2  p1 )

A k ( p1  p2 )
q
L
Darcy’s Equation & Water Cut
Ak   p 
q   g sin  
  x  α
qo o  po
Oil Flow :    g o sin  
A ko x
qw  w  pw
Water Flow :    g w sin  
A kw x
68
12/1/2011
Developing the Fractional Flow Equation:
Step 1:
qw  w qo ow  po pw 
   
  g  w   o sin   
A kw A ko  x x 
Step 2:
Capillary Pressure : pc  po  pw
pc po pw
 
x x x
Step 3:
qw  f w qt and qo  1  f w qt
 k A   p 
1   o   c  g   sin   
  o qt   x 
fw   
ko  w
1
k w o
 0.001127ko A   pc 
1   x  0.433  sin   

  q   
fw   o t 
k 
1 o w
k w o
Noting that the relative permeability ratios kro/krw=ko/kw and the total
flow rate qt is essentially equal to the water injection rate, i.e. iw = qt,
 0.001127k k ro  A   pc 
1  
  0.433  sin   
  o iw 
fw     x 
k 
1  ro w
k rw  o
the density difference ∆ρ= (ρw – ρo) in g/cm3
69
12/1/2011
FOCUS FOCUS FOCUS

 k A   p 
1   o   c  g   sin   
  o qt   x 
fw   
k 
1 o w
k w o
fo = 1 - fw
That is at ANY POSITION IN THE RESERVOIR,

i.e. ANY DISTANCE FROM THE INJECTION WELL
Water, Gas, or Solvent Injection:
 0.001127k k ro  A   pc 
1  
  0.433  sin   
  o is   x 
fs   
k 
1  ro s
k rs  o
the density difference ∆ρ= (ρs – ρo) in g/cm3
70
12/1/2011
The effect capillary pressure is usually neglected

because the capillary pressure gradient is generally
small and thus,
 0.001127k k ro  A 
1   0.433 w   o sin   
  i 
fw   
o w
k ro  w
1
k rw  o
the density difference (ρw – ρo) in g/cm3
Similarly for ANY Type of Displacing Fluid:
 0.001127k k ro  A 
1    0.433 D   o sin   
  o iD 
fD   
k ro  D
1
k rD  o
The shape of the water cut versus water saturation curve is

characteristically S-shaped, as shown below
Oil-Water Gas-Oil
71
12/1/2011
fo = 1− fw
The above expression indicates that during the displacement of oil by
waterflood, an increase in fw at any point in the reservoir will cause a
proportional decrease in fo and oil mobility. Therefore, the objective is to
select the proper injection scheme that could possibly reduce the water
fractional flow. This can be achieved by investigating the effect of:
1. the injected water viscosity

2. formation dip angle, and
3. water-injection rate on the water cut.
 0.001127k k ro  A 
1   0.433 w   o sin   
  o iw  1 G
fw    
k ro  w k 
1 1  ro w
k rw  o k rw  o
In general; any influences that cause the fractional flow curve to shift
upward (i.e., increase in fw or fg) will result in a less efficient displacement
process. It is essential, therefore, to determine the effect of various component
parts of the fractional flow equation on the displacement efficiency:
i.e:
1. Water & Oil viscosities
2. Wettability fw
3. Injection rate iw
4. Updip or downdip injection
reason
 0.001127k k ro  A 
1   0.433 w   o sin   
  o iw 
fw   
k ro  w
1
k rw  o
1 G Sw
 We need to increase G!
k 
1  ro w
k rw  o
72
12/1/2011
We want to reduce fw
fw
α
Sw
 0.001127k k ro  A 
1   0.433 w   o sin   
  i 
fw   
o w
k ro  w
1
k rw  o
1- Effect of Water Viscosity

 0.001127k k ro  A 
1   0.433 w   o sin   
  o iw 
fw   
k ro  w
1
k rw  o
µw = 0.5 cp
µw = 1 cp
µw = 2 cp
µw = 5 cp
µw = 10 cp
Objective is to reduce fw
73
12/1/2011
2- Effect of Oil Viscosity of fw

 0.001127k k ro  A 
1   0.433 w   o sin   
  o iw 
fw   
k ro  w
1
k rw  o
11/21/2011
3- Effect of Wettability
11/21/2011
74
12/1/2011
4- Combined Effect of Wettability and Oil Viscosity

 0.001127k k ro  A 
1   0.433 w   o sin   
  o iw 
fw   
k w
1  ro
k rw  o
5- Effect of Dip Angle & Injection Rate

 0.001127k k ro  A 
1   0.433 w   o sin   
  o iw 
fw   
k ro  w
1
k rw  o
 sin   
1  X 
fw   iw  Sin(α) > 0
1 Y
a) Injection Well is Located Downdip:
sin(α) is positive when injecting downdip indicating a more efficient performance
is obtained. This improvement is due to the fact that the term [X sin(α)/iw] will
always remain positive, which leads to a decrease (downward shift) in the fw
curve.
Injection Rate:
The fractional flow equation also reveals that a lower water-injection rate iw is
desirable since the nominator {1 – [X sin(α)/iw]} will decrease with a lower
injection rate iw, resulting in an overall downward shift in the fw curve.
75
12/1/2011
b) Injection Well is Located Updip:

sin(α) is negative. When the oil is displaced downdip (i.e., injection well is located
updip), the term [X sin(α)/iw] will always remain negative and, therefore, the
numerator of fractional flow equation will be 1+[X sin(α)/iw ], i.e.:
 0.001127k k ro  A 
1   0.433 w   o sin   
  o iw 
fw   
k 
1  ro w
k rw  o
 sin   
1  X 
fw   iw  Sin(α) < 0
1 Y
Injection Rate:
which causes an increase (upward shift) in the fw curve. It is beneficial, therefore,
when injection wells are located at the top of the structure to inject the water at a
higher injection rate to improve the displacement efficiency.
Sin(α) > 0
 sin   
1  X 
 iw 
fw 
1 Y
76
12/1/2011
Water Cut fw >1 !!!!! How and Why?
Water Cut fw >1 !!!!!!!! How?

Counter Flow IN THE RESERVOIR
 0.001127k k ro  A 
1   0.433 w   o sin   
  o iw 
fw   
k 
1  ro w
k rw  o
Sin(α) < 0
Sin(α) < 0
 sin   
1  X 
 iw 
fw 
1 Y
C
1   
 iw  if
fw  iw is low (C/iw) > Y fw > 1
1 Y
11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
77
12/1/2011
Class Problem
Use the relative permeability as shown in the next slide to plot the
fractional flow curve for a linear reservoir system with the following
properties:
Dip angle = 0
Absolute permeability = 50 md
Bo = 1.20 bbl/STB, Bw = 1.05 bbl/STB
ρo = 45 lb/ft3; ρw = 64.0 lb/ft3
Cross-sectional area A = 25,000 ft2
Perform the calculations for the following values of oil and water
viscosities:
µw = 0.5, 1.0, 5, and 10 cp with a constant µo = 5 cp
Kr
Sw © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
78
12/1/2011
Class Problem:
The linear system in last example is under consideration

for a waterflooding project with a water injection rate of
1000 bbl/day.; which has the following characterization:
Absolute permeability = 50 md
Bo = 1.20 bbl/STB, Bw = 1.05 bbl/STB
ρo = 45 lb/ft3; ρw = 64.0 lb/ft3
Cross-sectional area A = 25,000 ft2
The oil viscosity is considered constant at 1.0 cp.

Calculate and PLOT the fractional flow curve for the
reservoir dip angles of: 10, 20, and 30, assuming:
updip displacement
downdip displacement
Surface and Reservoir Water Cut

In waterflooding calculations, the reservoir water cut fw and the water–oil
ratio WOR are both traditionally expressed in two different units: bbl/bbl and
STB/STB. The interrelationships that exist between these two parameters
are conveniently presented below:
Qo = oil flow rate, STB/day qo = oil flow rate, bbl/day

Qw = water flow rate, STB/day qw = water flow rate, bbl/day
fws = surface water cut, STB/STB fw = reservoir water cut, bbl/bbl
WORs = surface water–oil ratio, STB/STB

WORr = reservoir water–oil ratio, bbl/bbl
79
12/1/2011
Surface and Reservoir Water Cut

In waterflooding calculations, the reservoir water cut fw and the water–oil
ratio WOR are both traditionally expressed in two different units: bbl/bbl and
STB/STB. The interrelationships that exist between these two parameters
are conveniently presented below:
1) Reservoir fwr – Reservoir WORr Relationship:
q
( w)
qw qo WOR r 1 f
f wr   f wr  WOR r   wr
q
q w  qo ( w )  1 1 1  f wr
WOR r  1 1
qo f wr
2) Reservoir fwr – Surface WORs Relationship

Q
( w ) Bw
qw Qw Bw Qo Bw WOR s Bo Bo f wr
f wr    f wr  WOR s  
1
qw  qo Qw Bw  Qo Bo Q
( w ) Bw  Bo Bw WOR s  Bo Bw ( 1) Bw (1 f wr )
Qo f wr
3) Reservoir WORr – Surface WORs Relationship:
Q
( w ) Bw Bw
WOR r  WOR s (
Bo
qw Qw Bw
WOR r  
Q
 o ) WOR s  WOR r ( )
qo Qo Bo Bo Bo Bw
4) Surface fws – Surface WORs Relationship:

Q
( w)

Qw

Qo WOR s
f ws
Qw  Qo ( Qw ) 1 f ws 
Qo
WOR s  1
5) Surface fws – Reservoir fw Relationship:

Bo
f ws 
 1 
Bw   1  Bo
 fw 
80
12/1/2011
The fractional flow equation, as discussed in the previous

section, is used to determine the water cut fw at any point
in the reservoir, assuming that the water saturation at the
point is known. The question, however, is how to
determine the water saturation at this particular point.
The answer is to use the frontal advance equation. The

frontal advance equation is designed to determine the
water saturation profile in the reservoir at any give time
during water injection.
Frontal Advance Theory

Rights Reserved
81
12/1/2011
Frontal Advance Equation

Buckley and Leverett (1942) presented what is recognized as the basic equation for
describing two-phase, immiscible displacement in a linear system. The equation is derived
based on developing a material balance for the displacing fluid as it flows through any
given element in the porous media:
Volume entering the element – Volume leaving the element = change in fluid volume
Consider a differential element of porous media, as shown below, having a

differential length dx, an area A, and a porosity φ. During a differential time
period dt, the total volume of water entering the element is given by:
fw =qw/qt
Consider a differential element of porous media, as shown above, having a differential

length “dx,” an area “A,” and a porosity “ ”. During a differential time period “dt”, the
total volume of water entering the element is given by:
Volume of water entering the element = qt fw dt
The volume of water leaving the element has differentially smaller water cut “fw - dfw ”
and given by:
Volume of water leaving the element = qt (fw – dfw) dt
Subtracting the above two expressions gives the accumulation of the water volume
within the element in terms of the differential changes of the saturation dfw:
qt fw dt – qt (fw – dfw) dt = A (dx) (dSw)/5.615
Simplifying:
11/21/2011 qt dfw dt = A  (dx) (dSw)/5.615 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
82
12/1/2011
The Frontal Advance Equation
 5.615iw t   df w 
x Sw    
 dS 
  A   w  Sw
or :
 5.615Winj   df w 
x Sw     
  A   dSw  Sw
Water Saturation at the Front “Swf”

Experimental core waterflood data confirmed that there is a distinct front, or
shock front, at which the water saturation abruptly increases from Swc to Swf.
Behind the flood front; there is a gradual increase in saturations from Swf up to
the maximum value of “1-Sor.” Therefore, the saturation Swf is called the water
saturation at the front or alternatively as the water saturation of the stabilized
zone.
1-Sor
Non-Stabilized Zone
Swf
Stabilized Zone
Swc
Swc
83
12/1/2011
Welge (1952) showed that by drawing a straight line from Swc (or from Swi if
it is different from Swc) tangent to the fractional flow curve, the saturation
value at the tangent point is equivalent to that at the front “Swf.” The
coordinate of the point of tangency represents also the value of the water
cut at the leading edge of the water front “fwf.”
Important to Remember:
fwf is the water cut at the front
(Leading Edge)
Swf is the water saturation
at the front (Leading Edge)
Water Saturation Profile

From the above discussion, the water saturation profile at any given
time “t1” can be easily developed as follows:
Step 1. Ignoring the capillary pressure term, construct the fractional

flow curve, i.e. fw vs. Sw.
Step 2. Draw a straight-line tangent from Swi to the curve.
Step 3. Identify the point of tangency and read off the values of Swf
and fwf.
Step 4. Calculate graphically the slope of the tangent as (dfw/dSw)Swf.
Step 5. Calculate the distance of the leading edge of the water front
from the injection well by applying:
 5.615 iw t1   dfw 
x Swf     
 A   dSw  Swf
84
12/1/2011
Step 6. Select several values for water saturation “Sw” greater

than Swf and determine (dfw/dSw)Sw by graphically drawing a
tangent to the fw curve at each selected water saturation
Step 7. Calculate the distance from the injection well to each selected
saturation by applying:
  
x Sw   5.615 iw t1   dfw 
11/21/2011   A dS
  w  Sw© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Step 8. Establish the water saturation profile after t1, days by plotting
results obtained in step 7.
Step 9. Select a new time “t2” and repeat steps 5 through 7 to

generate a family of water saturation profiles as shown schematically
below
1-Sor
t1 tn
t2
Swf
Swc
Swc
Water saturation profile as a function of time and distance

85
12/1/2011
NOTICE
When constructing the water saturation
profile, it should be noted that there is
no water saturation with a value less
than Swf exists behind the water the
leading edge of the water bank.
Important Approach:
Some erratic values of (dfw/dSw)Sw might result when
determining the slope graphically at different saturations. A
better way is determine the derivative mathematically by
recognizing that the relative permeability ratio (kro/krw) can be
expressed by:
k ro
 a eb Sw
k rw
Notice that the slope “b” in the above expression has a negative
value.
The above expression can be substituted in fractional flow
equation, to give:
1
fw 
  
1   w  a e b S w
 o 
86
12/1/2011
The derivative of (dfw/dSw)Sw may be obtained mathematically by

differentiating the above equation with respect to Sw, to give:
 
  w  a b e bSw
 df w   o   5.615iw t   df w 
   2 x Sw    
 dS 
 dSw  Sw    w  bSw    A   w  Sw
1    a e 
   o  
 
  w  a b e bSw
 5.615iw t 
( x) Sw     o 
  A     w  bSw
2

1    a e 
   o  
Class Problem:
Given the following data is available for a linear-reservoir system:
Sw 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
kro/krw 30.23 17.00 9.56 5.38 3.02 1.70 0.96 0.54 0.30 0.17 0.10
Oil formation volume factor “Bo” = 1.25 bbl/STB

Water formation volume factor “Bw” = 1.02 bbl/STB
Formation thickness “h” = 20 ft
Cross-sectional area “A” = 26,400 ft.
Porosity “” = 25%
Injection rate “iw” = 900 bbl/day
Distance between producer and injector “L” = 600 ft.
Oil viscosity “o” = 2.0 cp
Water viscosity “w” = 1.0 cp
Dip angle “” = 0
Connate water saturation “Swc” = 20%
Initial water saturation “Swi ” = 20%
Residual oil saturation “Sor” = 20%
Calculate and plot the water saturation profile after 60, 100, 120, 200 and 240 days.
87
12/1/2011
Understanding the Frontal Advance

Theory & its Applications

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
1- at B.T:
 5.615 iw t BT   dfw  LA  dfw 

( x) Swf  L       P.V  iw t BT  
 A   dSw  Swf 5.615  dSw  Swf
 P.V   1
t BT  
2- Time to B.T:  iw 

 df w 
 
 dSw  Swf
WiBT  iw t BT 
P.V   ( P.V ) QiBT
3- Cum. Water Injected at B.T:  df w 
 
 dSw  Swf
WiBT 1
QiBT  
4- P.V Injected at B.T P.V   df w 
 
 dSw  Swf
88
12/1/2011
Class Problem:
Using the data given in last class problem, calculate:
time, to breakthrough
calculate cumulative water injected at breakthrough
calculate total pore volumes of water injected at B.T
Average Water Saturation at B.T
89
12/1/2011
Average Water Saturation at B.T

let us exam the following important expression:
1
WiBT  ( P.V )  P.V  QiBT
 df w 
 
 dS w  Swf
If the tangent to the fractional flow curve is extrapolated to fw = 1 with a
corresponding water saturation of Sw*, then the slope of the tangent can be
calculated numerically as:
 df w  1 0
   *
 dS w  Swf S w  S wi
Combining the above two expressions,
gives:
 
WiBT  P.V  S w*  S wi  P.V  QiBT
Or:
 
WiBT  P.V  S wBT  S wi  P.V  QiBT
One more time, Key Definitions
Average water Saturation
at B.T
Important to Remember: 2
   w  bSwf 
fwf is the water cut 1    a e 
  o  
at the front (Leading S wBT  S wi  
Edge)  w  bSwf
   a b e
 o
Swf is the water saturation at the
front (Leading Edge)
90
12/1/2011
There are two important points that must be considered when determining
average water saturation at SwBT and cumulative water injected at B.T :
Point 1. When drawing the tangent, the line must be originated from the
initial water saturation if it is different from the connate water
saturation.
2
   w  bSwf 
1    a e 
   o  
S wBT  S wi 
 w  bS
  a b e wf
 o 
Swf
Point 2. When calculating cumulative water injected at B.T; the Areal

Sweep Efficiency EA and Vertical Sweep Efficiency EV must be
accounted for, as:
 
WiBT  P.V  S wBT  S wi E ABT EVBT
WiBT  P.V QiBT E ABT EVBT
91
12/1/2011
At Breakthrough
It should be noted that the average water saturation in the swept area
would remain constant with an average SwBT until breakthrough occurs. At
the time of breakthrough, the flood front saturation Swf reaches the
producing well and the water cut increases suddenly from zero to fwf. At
breakthrough, Swf and fwf are designated as SwBT and fwBT.
Average water saturation
After Breakthrough
After breakthrough, the water saturation and the water cut at
the producing well gradually increases with continuous
injection of water. Traditionally, the produced well is
designated as well 2 and, therefore, the water saturation and
water cut at the producing well are denoted as Sw2 and fw2,
respectively.
1 2
92
12/1/2011
Waterflooding Performance
Performance Calculations are divided into two
Stages:
A. To Breakthrough
B. After Breakthrough

Rights Reserved
Recovery Performance to Breakthrough

Step 1. Draw tangent to the fractional flow curve as originated from Swi and
determine:
1) Point of tangency with the coordinate (Swf, fwf) and slope of the line
  bS
  w  a b e wf
 df w


   o 
2
 dSw  Swf    w  bS 
1    a e wf 
   o  
2) Average water saturation at breakthrough by extending the tangent

line to fw = 1.0, or by applying:
2
   w  bSwf 
1    a e 
  o  
S wBT  S wi  
 w  bS
  a b e wf
  o 
93
12/1/2011
Step 2. Calculate pore volumes of water injected at breakthrough by

using:
1
QiBT   ( S wBT  S wi )
df w
( ) Swf
dS w
Or equivalently:
2
  w  bS 
1    a e wf 
  o  
QiBT  
 w  bS
  a b e wf

 o
Step 3. Assuming EA and EV are 100%, calculate cumulative water

injected at breakthrough by applying:
WiBT  P.V  QiBT 

WiBT  P.V  S wBT  S wi  WP = 0
Step 4. Calculate the displacement efficiency at breakthrough by applying
S wBT  S wi
E DBT 
1  S wi
Step 5. Calculate cumulative oil production at breakthrough from
N  p BT  N S EDBT
Step 6. Assuming a constant water injection rate, calculate time to

breakthrough from :
WiBT
t BT 
iw
94
12/1/2011
Step 7. Select several values of injection time less than the breakthrough time,
i.e. t  tBT and set:
Winj = iw t
Qo = iw/Bo
WOR =0
Wp =0
iw t Winj
Np  
Bo Bo
Step 8. Calculate the surface water-oil ratio “WORs” exactly at breakthrough
by using
Bo
WOR s 
 1 
Bw   1
f
 wf 
It should be pointed out that ALL calculations abve are based on

the assumption that Sgi =0, EA and EV are 100%.
Recovery Performance After

Breakthrough

Rights Reserved
95
12/1/2011
when the water saturation at the producing well reaches any assumed value
Sw2 after breakthrough, the fractional flow curve can be used to determine:
I. Producing water cut fw2

II. Average water saturation in the reservoir
III. Cumulative water injected in pore volumes, i.e. Qi
Saturation around wellbore at the Production well

Sw2
96
12/1/2011
Performance after B.T:

Step 1: Assume a value of Sw2 greater than Swf and draw a tangent to fw
curve. the point of tangency corresponds to the well producing
water cut fw2, as expressed in bbl/bbl.
Step 2: The saturation at which the tangent intersects fw = 1 is the average

water saturation Sw2 in the swept area. Mathematically, the average
water saturation is determined from:
1  f w2
S w2  S w2 
 df w 
 
Or:  dSw  Sw2
2
   
(1  f w 2 ) 1   w  a e bSw 2 
   o  
S w2  S w2 
 w 
  a b e bSw 2
  o 
Step 3: The reciprocal of the slope of the tangent is defined as the cumulative
pore volumes of water injected Qi at the time when the water
saturation reaches Sw2 at the producing well, or:
2
1    w  bSw 2 
Qi  1    a e  Remember, the “b”
 df w    o 
  is negative
  Qi  
 w 
 dSw  Sw2   a b e bSw 2
 o 
Step 4: The cumulative water injected when the water saturation at the
producing reaches Sw2 is given by:
Winj  P.V  (S w2  S wi ) E A EV  Bw WP
97
12/1/2011
Step 5: For a constant injection rate “iw” , the total time “t” to inject
“Winj” barrels of water is given by:
Winj
t
iw
For Spreadsheet Calculations & Working Equations

2
  w  bS 
1 1    a e wf 
f w2     o  
 w  b Sw2 S wBT  S wi 
1   ae  w  bS
  a b e wf
  o   o 
2
   
(1  f w 2 ) 1   w  a e bSw 2 
   o  
Winj  P.V  ( S w2  S wi ) E A EV  WP S w2  S w2 
 w 
  a b e bSw 2
 o 
   
   2 
 1  1  1    w 
 a e bSw 2
 
        o 

 
   w  a b e  
bSw 2
   o   
Winj  ( P.V ) E A EV  ( S w 2  S wi )   
  w  
   a b e
bSw 2
  o  
 
 
 
 
11/21/2011
98
12/1/2011
Class problem:
Using the data given in last class problem for the linear reservoir system,
calculate the following when the water saturation at the producing well
reaches 0.70 (i.e., Sw2 = 0.7):
a. reservoir water cut in bbl/bbl
b. surface water cut in STB/STB
c. reservoir water–oil ratio in bbl/bbl
d. surface water–oil ratio in STB/STB
e. average water saturation in the swept area
f. pore volumes of water injected
g. cumulative water injected in bbl
Assume that the areal and vertical sweep efficiency are 100%, i.e., E A =
1.0 and EV = 1.0.
Just in case its hard for you to go back; same data are shown next
Sw 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
kro/krw 30.23 17.00 9.56 5.38 3.02 1.70 0.96 0.54 0.30 0.17 0.10
Oil formation volume factor “Bo” = 1.25 bbl/STB

Water formation volume factor “Bw” = 1.02 bbl/STB
Formation thickness “h” = 20 ft
Cross-sectional area “A” = 26,400 ft.
Porosity “” = 25%
Injection rate “iw” = 900 bbl/day
Distance between producer and injector “L” = 600 ft.
Oil viscosity “o” = 2.0 cp
Water viscosity “w” = 1.0 cp
Dip angle “” = 0
Connate water saturation “Swc” = 20%
Initial water saturation “Swi ” = 20%
Residual oil saturation “Sor” = 20%
11/21/2011
99
12/1/2011
Knowing you; I am sure you forgot

these relationships:
1) Reservoir fwr – Reservoir WORr Relationship:

q
( w)
qw qo WOR r 1 f
f wr   f wr  WOR r   wr
q
q w  qo ( w )  1 1 1  f wr
WOR r  1 1
qo f wr
2) Reservoir fwr – Surface WORs Relationship

Q
( w ) Bw
qw Qw Bw Qo Bw WOR s Bo Bo f wr
f wr    f wr  WOR s  
1
qw  qo Qw Bw  Qo Bo Q
( w ) Bw  Bo Bw WOR s  Bo Bw ( 1) Bw (1 f wr )
Qo f wr
3) Reservoir WORr – Surface WORs Relationship:
Q
( w ) Bw Bw
WOR r  WOR s (
Bo
qw Qw Bw
WOR r  
Q
 o ) WOR s  WOR r ( )
qo Qo Bo Bo Bo Bw
4) Surface fws – Surface WORs Relationship:

Q
( w)
Qw Qo WOR s
f ws   f ws 
Qw  Qo ( Qw ) 1 WOR s  1
Qo
5) Surface fws – Reservoir fw Relationship:

Bo
f ws 
 1 
Bw   1  Bo
 f wr 
100
12/1/2011
Oil Recovery Calculations

The main objective of performing oil recovery calculations
is to generate a set of performance curves under a specific
water-injection scenario. A set of performance curves is
defined as the graphical presentation of the time-related oil
recovery calculations in terms of:
• Oil production rate, Qo
• Water production rate, Qw
• Surface water–oil ratio, WORs
• Cumulative oil production, Np
• Recovery factor, RF
• Cumulative water production, W p
• Cumulative water injected, W inj
• Water-injection pressure, pinj
• Water-injection rate, iw
Waterflooding Performance
Before breakthrough occurs, the oil recovery calculations are simple when
assuming that no free gas exists at the start of the flood, i.e. Sgi = 0. The
cumulative oil production is simply equal to the volume of water injected and
no water production during this phase (Wp = 0 and Qw = 0).
Oil recovery calculations after breakthrough are based on determining ED at

various assumed values of water saturations at the producing well.
Assuming ; Sgi =0 ,EA ,EV = 100%; the specific steps of performing
complete oil recovery calculations are composed of three stages:
1) Data preparation
2) Recovery performance to breakthrough
3) Recovery performance after breakthrough

Rights Reserved
101
12/1/2011
Stage 1: Data Preparation

Step 1. Express the relative permeability data as relative permeability
ratio kro/krw and plot their values versus their corresponding
water saturations on a semi-log scale.
Step 2. Assuming that the resulting plot of relative permeability ratio,

kro/krw vs. Sw, forms a straight-line relationship, determine
values of the coefficients “a” and “b” of the straight line.
Express the straight-line relationship in the form as given
k ro
 a e bSw
k rw
Step 3. Calculate and plot the fractional flow curve “fw”, allowing for
gravity effects if necessary, but neglecting the capillary pressure
gradient.
Step 4. Select several values of water saturations between Swf and (1- Sor)
and determine the slope (dfw/dSw) at each saturation. The numerical
calculation of each slope as expressed by the following Equation to
provide with consistent values as a function of saturation, or:

 ( w ) a b eb Sw 2
df w o
( )
dSw [1 (  w ) a e b S w 2 ]2
o
102
12/1/2011
Stage 2. Recovery Performance to Breakthrough
Step 1. Draw tangent to the fractional flow curve as originated from Swi and
determine:
1) Point of tangency with the coordinate (Swf, fwf) and slope of the line
  bS
  w  a b e wf
 df w  
 o
   2
 dSw  Swf    w  bSwf 
1
    
 a e 
   o  
2) Average water saturation at breakthrough by extending the tangent

line to fw = 1.0, or by applying:
2
   w  bSwf 
1    a e 
  o 
 
S wBT  S wi 
 w  bSwf
  a b e
 o 
Step 2. Calculate pore volumes of water injected at breakthrough by

using:
1
QiBT   ( S wBT  S wi )
df
( w ) Swf
dS w
Or equivalently:
2
  w  bS 
1    a e wf 
  o  
QiBT  
 w  bS
  a b e wf

 o
103
12/1/2011
Step 3. Assuming EA and EV are 100%, calculate cumulative water

injected at breakthrough by applying:
WiBT  P.V  QiBT 

WiBT  P.V  S wBT  S wi  WP = 0
Step 4. Calculate the displacement efficiency at breakthrough by applying
S wBT  S wi
E DBT 
1  S wi
Step 5. Calculate cumulative oil production at breakthrough from
N  p BT  N S EDBT
Step 6. Assuming a constant water injection rate, calculate time to

breakthrough from :
WiBT
t BT 
iw
Step 7. Select several values of injection time less than the breakthrough time,
i.e. t  tBT and set:
Winj = iw t
Qo = iw/Bo
WOR =0
Wp =0
iw t Winj
Np  
Bo Bo
Step 8. Calculate the surface water-oil ratio “WORs” exactly at breakthrough
by using
Bo
WOR s 
 1 
Bw   1
 f wf 
It should be pointed out that ALL calculations abve are based on

the assumption that Sgi =0, EA and EV are 100%.
104
12/1/2011
Recovery Performance After

Breakthrough

Rights Reserved
DO NOT PANIC; let us have some good

“Mate”, below is ONLY a SUMMARY
Sw2 fw2 (dfw/dSw) S w2 ED Np Qi Winj t Wp WORs Qo Qw
SwBT fwBT  SwBT EDBT NPBT QiBT WiBT tBT 0   
            
            
            
(1 – Sor) 1.0         100% 0 
 1  f w2
1  ( w ) a b eb Sw 2 S w2  S w2  S w2  S wi
f w2 
 
df
( w )
o  df w  ED 
1   w  a e bSw 2 dSw [1 (  w ) a e b S w 2 ]2   1  S wi
 o   dSw  S w 2
o
1
Winj  P.V Qi  
Winj  S w2  S wi P.V  E A EV Winj
NP = Ns ED EA EVQi   dfw  Wp  t
 dS 
Bw iw
 w  Sw2
Bo iw
WOR s 
 1
Bw 

 1
Qo  Qw  Qo WOR s
 f w2 
Bo  Bw WOR s
105
12/1/2011
Stage 3: Recovery Performance after Breakthrough:
The recommended methodology of calculating recovery performance

after breakthrough is based on selecting several values of water
saturations around at the producing well, i.e. S w2, and determining the
corresponding average reservoir water saturation for each S w2.
Step 1. Select 6 to 8 different values of Sw2 (i.e. Sw at the producer)

between SwBT and (1 – Sor) and determine (dfw2/dSw2) values
corresponding to these Sw2 points.
w
) a b eb Sw 2
(
df o
( w )
dSw [1 (  w ) a e b S w 2 ]2
o
Step 2. For each selected value of Sw2, calculate the corresponding

reservoir water cut and average water saturation from:
1 1  f w2
f w2  S w2  S w2 
   df w 
1   w  a e bSw 2  
 o   dSw  S w2
Step 3. Calculate the displacement efficiency ED for each selected value of

Sw2.
S w2  S wi
ED 
1  S wi
Step 4. Calculate cumulative oil production Np for each selected value of
Sw2 from:
NP = Ns ED EA EV
106
12/1/2011
Step 5. Determine pore volumes of water injected “Qi” for each selected
value of Sw2 from
1
Qi 
 df w 
 
 dSw  S w 2
Step 6. Calculate cumulative water injected for each selected value of Sw2
by applying
Winj  P.V Qi
Notice that EA and EV are set equal to 100%
Step 7. Assuming a constant water injection rate iw, calculate the time
“t” to inject Winj barrels of water by applying
Winj
t
iw
Step 8. Calculate cumulative water production “WP” at any time “t” from
the material balance equation which states the cumulative water
injected at any time will displace an equivalent volume of oil and
water, or:
Wp 

Winj  S w2  S wi P.V  E A EV 
Bw
107
12/1/2011
Step 9. Calculate the surface water-oil ratio WORs that corresponds to each
value of fw2 (as determined in step 2) from Equation
Bo
WOR s 
 1 
Bw   1
f
 w2 
Step 10. Calculate the oil and water flow rates from the following derived r
elationships:
iw  Qo Bo  Qw Bw
Introducing the surface water-oil ratio into the above expression, gives:
iw  Qo Bo  Qo WOR s Bw
Solving for Qo and Qw gives:
iw
Bo  Bw WOR s
Step 11. Above calculations as described in Step 1 through 10 can be

organized in the following tabulated form:
Sw2 fw2 (dfw/dSw) S w2 ED Np Qi Winj t Wp WORs Qo Qw

SwBT fwBT  SwBT EDBT NPBT QiBT WiBT tBT 0   
            
            
            
(1 – Sor) 1.0         100% 0 
 1  f w2
1  ( w ) a b eb Sw 2 S w2  S w2  S w2  S wi
f w2 
 
df
( w )
o  df w  ED 
1   w  a e bSw 2 dSw [1 (  w ) a e b S w 2 ]2   1  S wi
 o   dSw  S w 2
o
1
Winj  P.V Qi  
Winj  S w2  S wi P.V  E A EV Winj
NP = Ns ED EA EVQi   dfw  Wp  t
 dS 
Bw iw
 w  Sw2
Bo iw
WOR s 
 1
Bw 

 1
 f w2 
Bo  Bw WOR s
108
12/1/2011
Class Problem
The data of previous class problem is reproduced here for convenience:
Sw 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
kro/kro 30.23 17.00 9.56 5.38 3.02 1.70 0.96 0.54 0.30 0.17 0.10
fw 0.062 0.105 0.173 0.271 0.398 0.541 0.677 0.788 0.869 0.922 0.956
dfw/dSw 0.670 10.84 1.647 2.275 2.759 2.859 2.519 1.922 1.313 0.831 0.501
o = 2.0 cp w = 1.0 cp
Bo = 1.25 bbl/STB Bw = 1.02 bbl/STB
 = 25% h = 20 ft
Swi = 20% Sor = 20%
iw = 900 bbl/day (P.V) = 775,779 bbl
Ns = 496,449 STB EA = 100%
EV = 100%
Predict the waterflood performance to abandonment at a WORs of 45 STB/STB
II. AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY
109
12/1/2011
II. AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY

The areal sweep efficiency EA is defined as the fraction of the total flood pattern
that is contacted by the displacing fluid. It increases steadily with injection from
zero at the start of the flood until breakthrough occurs, after which EA continues
to increase at a slower rate.
The areal sweep efficiency depends basically on the following three main factors:
1. Mobility ratio M
2. Flood pattern
3. Cumulative water injected Winj
4. Pressure distribution between injectors and producers
5. Directional permeability
If directional permeability trends can be identified, injection and production wells

can be arranged to take advantage of the trends to enhance areal sweep
efficiency.
Mobility Ratio “M”

displacingFluid w
M 
displacedFluid o
k rw S
w  wBT
w
k ro S
o  wi
o
k rw S o
M wBT
k ro S wi
w

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
110
12/1/2011

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Effect of M on Performance

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
111
12/1/2011
Viscosity Effect on
Conformance and Sweep
Efficiency
Production Production
well well
Sw Swi
Sw Polymer Flooding
With favorable M
Swi
Injection Injection
well well
displacingFluid k rw S wBT o
M  key
displacedFluid k ro S wi  w
λdisplaced =kro/µo Swi

Swi
Crude Oil
Swi
Sw
λdisplacing =krw/µw
Sw Injected water Sw Swi
Figure 6-17. Viscous fingering in water flood

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
112
12/1/2011
Mobility Control is a
MUST
2- λ 1- λ
mobility of oil
3- λ
 displacing (k rw /  w )
M 
 displaced (k ro /  o )
M 1.0 ; if possible
k   o 
M   rw   
 k ro   w 
225
Areal Sweep Prediction Methods

Methods of predicting the areal sweep efficiency are essentially divided
into the following three phases of the flood:
• Before breakthrough
• At breakthrough
• After breakthrough
Phase 1: Areal Sweep Efficiency Before Breakthrough :

The areal sweep efficiency before breakthrough is simply proportional
to the volume of water injected and is given by:
Winj
EA 
P.V S wBT  S wi 
113
12/1/2011
Phase 2: Areal Sweep Efficiency at Breakthrough
0.03170817 0.30222997
E ABT  0.54602036   0.00509693M
M eM
Phase 3: Areal Sweep Efficiency After Breakthrough
Winj
E A  E ABT  0.633 log ( )
WiBT
Winj
E A  E ABT  0.2749 ln ( )
WiBT
114
12/1/2011

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
1
EA 
1 A
A  a1 ln M  a2   a3  f w  a4 lnM  a5   a6
COEFFICIENTS IN AREAL SWEEP

EFFICIENCY CORRELATIONS
Coefficient Five-Spot Direct Line Staggered Line
a1 -0.2062 -0.3014 -0.2077
a2 -0.0712 -0.1568 -0.1059
a3 -0.511 -0.9402 -0.3526
a4 0.3048 0.3714 0.2608
a5 0.123 -0.0865 0.2444
a6 0.4394 0.8805 0.3158
115
12/1/2011
III. VERTICAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY

EV
Ev is based on Permeability Variation

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
116
12/1/2011
Impact of “V” on Recovery Factor
V=0.90
V=0.80
V=0.7
0

The vertical sweep efficiency, EV, is defined as the fraction of the vertical
section of the pay zone that is the injection fluid. This particular
sweep efficiency depends primarily on:
(1) the mobility ratio and

(2) total volume injected.
As a consequence of the non-uniform permeabilities, any injected fluid will
tend to move through the reservoir with an irregular front. In the more
permeable portions, the injected water will travel more rapidly than in the
less permeable zone.
117
12/1/2011
METHODS OF CACULATING EV
• Stiles’ Method
• Dykstra & Parsons Methods

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
118
12/1/2011
The Dykstra–Parsons Method

Dykstra and Parsons (1950) correlated the vertical sweep efficiency with the following
parameters:
• Permeability variation V
• Mobility ratio M
• Water–oil ratio WORr as expressed in bbl/bbl
The authors presented their correlation in a graphical form for water–oil ratios of 0.1,
0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 bbl/bbl. Dykstra and Parsons’ graphical
correlation for a WOR of 50 bbl/bbl.
(WOR  0.4) (18.948  2.499V )

Y
( M  0.8094V  1.137)10x
x  1.6453V 2  0.9735V  0.6891
119
12/1/2011
(WOR  0.4) (18.948  2.499V )

Y
( M  0.8094V  1.137)10x
x  1.6453V 2  0.9735V  0.6891
a5
EV  a1  a2 ln(Y )  a3 [ln(Y )]2  a4 [ln(Y )]3   a6 Y
ln(Y )
With the coefficients a1 through a6 as given by:
a1= 0.19862608 a2= 0.18147754

a3= 0.01609715 a4= -4.6226385x10-3
a5= -4.2968246x10-4 a6= 2.7688363x10-4
FUNDAMENTALS OF
EOR

Rights Reserved
120
12/1/2011
EOR
Thermal Miscible Flood Chemical

1) Steam 1) CO2 1) Micellar-Polymer
2) In-situ Combustion 2) Lean Gas 2) ASP
3) Huff-and-Puff 3) LPG 3) Polymer
4) Hot Water 4) N2 4) Others
5) SAGD 5) Air
6) Enriched Gas
Planning EOR Projects

 Evaluate production Data from the Primary/Secondary
 Laboratory PVT/Core Investigation
o Slim Tube
o Swelling
o Core Flood, Simulator matching
 Computer Modelling
oVarious operational schemes
oTiming of WAG/Miscibe Flood
oWell patterns,...etc
 Pilot Project (could delay field expansion; e.g. Prudhoe Bay)
 Data Acquisition During Pilot Flood
oSeparator testing
oCompositional analysis (breakthrough, vaporization)
oTracer survey (very important, layering system, thief zones,..etc)
oGOR,...etc
121
12/1/2011
Types of Displacement
A. Immiscible
B. Partial Miscible
C. Miscible
 First Contact Miscibility “FCM”
 Multiple Contact Miscibility “MCM”

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Controlling Parameters for a Successful

Secondary Recovery/EOR Process
The magnitude of the reduction and mobilization of

residual oil saturation by a secondary recovery or EOR
process is controlled by three major factors, these are:
1. Capillary Number “NC”

2. Mobility Ratio “M”
3. Viscosity-Gravity Ratio “G”
122
12/1/2011
1- Capillary Number NC
viscous force  k   p 
N  N   o 
c interfacial tensionforce c     L 
 
1.0
( S or ) after Range of Range of

Waterflood Miscible flood
( S or )before
0
Critical Nc NC
Mobilizing/Reducing the Residual Oil Saturation to Improve

Displacement efficiency is a Strong Function of NC
123
12/1/2011
Relative permeability curves for water and oil

used at high capillary numbers
2- Mobility Ratio “M”

M     
Designed to Improve Volumetric sweep efficiency

through λ; e,g.:
Polymer: improves λdisplacing & Steam: Improves λdisplaced
124
12/1/2011
3- Viscosity-Gravity Ratio “G”

 0.001127 k k ro  A 
1   0.433 s   o sin   
  o is  1 G
fs    
k ro  s k 
1 1  ro s
k rs  o k rs  o
fs
reason
Ss © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
M=20
M=386
fw
125
12/1/2011
CHEMICAL FLOOD
All chemical flood methods involve mixing chemical
with water prior to injection and, therefore, these
methods require reservoir characteristics and
conditions that very favorable to water injection ; i.e.:
o Low to moderate oil viscosity

o Moderate to high permeability
o Sufficient oil saturation for developing an oil bank
Chemical EOR Methods Utilize:

– Polymers
– Surfactants
– Alkaline agents
– Combinations of such chemicals
• ASP (Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer)
flooding
• MP (Micellar-Polymer) flooding
126
12/1/2011
Chemical Floods -
CURRENT STATUS WORLDWIDE
Venezuela USA
Indonesia
India
France
China
Total Number of Projects: 27
Chemical Floods -
PRODUCTION WORLDWIDE
France Indonesia
USA
China
Total oil production: 300,000 B/D
127
12/1/2011
Comments On Chemical Flood

o Very Sensitive to Oil Prices
o Highly influenced by Chemical Additive Costs
o High Upfront Investments create “the Management Fear
Factor” for the Technology’s Application despite the
Promise of Higher Returns
o EOR Chemical methods; in particular ASP, are PROVEN
TECHNOLOGIES that will Play a Key Role in the Very
Near Future in Mature and Water-flooded Reservoirs
o Current Energy Prices will Likely Lead to a Greater
Viability of Chemical Flood when compared to the Past
Two Decades
11/21/2011
Applicability & Concerns

1. Chemical flooding is used for oil systems that are more viscous than those
oils recovered by gas injection methods but less viscous than systems that
can be economically recovered by thermal methods
2. Adequate injectivity is required since lower mobility fluids are unusually
injected in chemical floods
3. If previously flooded, the chemical flood candidate should have responded
favorably by developing an oil bank
4. Strong water-drive reservoirs should be avoided because the potential for
low remaining oil saturations
5. Gas cap reservoirs are ordinarily avoided since the mobilized oil might re-
saturated the gas cap
6. Formations with high clay contents are undesirable since clays increase
adsorption of the injected chemicals
7. Reservoir brines of moderate salinity with low amount of divalent ions are
preferred since high concentrations interact unfavorably with the injected
chemicals
128
12/1/2011
REASONS FOR FAILURE

A. Insufficient description of reservoir geology
 Permeability heterogeneities
 Excessive clay content
 High water saturation
 Bottom water or gas cap
 Fractures
B. Inadequate understanding of process mechanisms
C. Unavailability of chemicals in large quantities
D. Heavy reliance on unscaled lab experiments

Rights Reserved
POLYMER FLOOD

Rights Reserved
129
12/1/2011
What is Polymer Flood?

Polymer flooding is viewed as an Improved Waterflooding
Technique since it does not typically recover residual oil that
has been trapped in pore spaces and isolated by water.
However, polymer flooding can produce additional oil over that
obtained from waterflooding by improving the sweep efficiency
and increasing the volume of reservoir that is contacted by the
injected fluid.
Most EOR methods are directed to improve displacement

efficiency by reducing residual oil saturation. Polymer flood,
however, is designed to improve sweep efficiency by reducing
the mobility ratio “M” as defined by
 displacing  k rw   o 
M    
 displaced  k ro   w 
130
12/1/2011
Simplified Dykstra and Parsons Method
Fundamentals of Polymer Flood

Polymers when are added to water, even in low
concentrations, will:
a) increases its viscosity

b) reduce the effective permeability to water
resulting in a reduction in the mobility ratio.
131
12/1/2011
a) Polymer Viscosity

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
λdisplaced =kro/µo
Crude Oil
Injected water
λdisplacing = krw /µw
Figure 6-17. Viscous fingering in water flood

11/21/2011
132
12/1/2011
Crude Oil Crude Oil
Polymer Solution
Injected Water
M >> 1 M≤1
Water flooding Polymer flooding
Figure 6-18. Comparison of viscous instability in water and polymer flood

Rights Reserved
M 1/M EA at EA at 95% water

Breakthrough cut
10 .1 0.35 0.83
2 .5 0.58 0.97
1 1 0.69 0.98
.5 2 0.79 1.00
.25 4 0.90 1.00
133
12/1/2011
shear stress 
 app  
shear rate 
Shear Rate (Fluid Velocity)
Pressure difference (shear Stress)
Pseudoplastic Fluids – polymer solutions are generally classified as

pseudoplastic fluids under most fluid injection and reservoir conditions. These
types of fluids exhibit larger apparent viscosities when flowing at low velocities and
lower apparent viscosity when flowing at high velocities
Oil
Apparent Viscosity
Polymer Solution
Water
Shear Rate (Flow velocity)
134
12/1/2011
Viscosity of the Polymer solution can be

controlled with addition of NacL
135
12/1/2011
1 n
 9n3 
 P  0.017543K   [150k w  (1  Sorw)] 2 ( ) n 1
 n 
Where:
µP = apparent viscosity of the polymer solution, cp
K = power-law coefficient from the viscometer experimental data cp (sec) n-1
n = power-law exponent
ᶲ = porosity, fraction
kw = permeability of water, md
sorw = residual oil saturation to water, fraction
v = superficial fluid velocity, ft/day

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Class problem
The viscometric and core flood data for a polymer flood are given below:
Core data:
kw = 17 md
ᶲ = 0.188
Sorw = 0.32
Polymer solution data:
Polymer concentration = 200 PPm
Viscosity of brine = 0.84 cp
K = 7.6 cp(sec)n-1
n = 0.67
Calculate and plot the polymer viscosity at the following superficial fluid velocity;
2.83, 5.67, 11.3, 17.0, 22.7, and 28.3 ft/day

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
136
12/1/2011
b) Permeability Reduction

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
The Permeability Reduction is essentially caused by the retention of

polymer molecules in the reservoir rock. This is a combination of:
Adsorption of polymer molecules to surface of sand grains

entrapment of polymer molecules in the pore throat
The above combinations process it is not entirely reversible. Thus most of

the polymer (and the benefits it provides) remains in the reservoir long after
polymer injection is stopped and the field is returned to water injection. This
reduction in the water permeability is fairly permanent while the permeability
to oil remains relatively unchanged.
The amount of polymer adsorbed on the rock surface depends on:
o the type and size of the polymer molecules

o polymer concentration
o rock surface properties.
137
12/1/2011
Polymer Adsorption:
Polymer molecules adsorb on the rock surface

as a monolayer with the thickness equal to the
diameter of the polymer molecules. Once the
monolayer saturation level is reached, no more
adsorption will occur.

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved

Rights Reserved
138
12/1/2011
A Core Flood is a MUST
The reduction in permeability is measured in

laboratory core flood and results are expressed
in two permeability reduction factors; these are:
Residual Resistance Factor “Rrf”

Resistance Factor “Rf”
Residual Resistance Factor “Rrf”

Ref is a laboratory measured property that describes the
reduction of water permeability after polymer flood. Polymer
solutions continue to reduce the permeability of the aqueous
phase even after the polymer solution has been displaced by
brine. The ability of the polymer solution to reduce the
permeability is expressed in property that is called the residual
resistance factor and is defined as ratio of the mobility of the
injected brine before and after the injection of the polymer
solution; i.e.
w (before polymerinjection)
Rrf 
w (after polymerinjection)
139
12/1/2011
Resistance Factor “Rf”

The resistance factor “Rf” is a property that describes
the reduction in water mobility and is defined as the
ratio of the of the brine mobility to that of the polymer
solution; i.e.:
w k w /  w
Rf  
P k P /  P
Modeling of Polymer Flood

Utilizes the following three functions:
1) Permeability Reduction Factor “Rk”
2) Viscosity Mixing Parameter “ω”
3) Effective Polymer and Water Viscosities “µe”
All numerical models will use the above three functions in every grid block
(location) to adjust:
a) Effective Permeability of the Polymer Solution “kP”
b) Effective Permeability of the Chase Water “kw”
c) Viscosity of the Polymer Solution “µPe”
d) Viscosity of the Chase Water “µwe”
140
12/1/2011
1- Permeability Reduction Factor “Rk”

 S  S  S   0.016S P C  w  
Rk 1.0  ( Rrf 1.0 )  w P wc    
 1  S orw  S wc   A 
P r 
 S P   k (k r ) S P  S w 
k p     
 
 S P  S w  Rk 
 S w   k (k r ) S P  S w 
k w     
 
 S P  S w  Rk 
AP= Polymer adsorption ,ugm/gm; SP= Polymer saturation

C= Polymer concentration, ppm; Φ = porosity
ρw= water density,lb/ft3; ρr= rock density, gm/cm3
2- Viscosity Mixing Parameter “ω”
 4 log[0.78  0.22 ( M )1/ 4 ]

M P &  1
w log(M )
3- Effective Viscosity
4
 Rf   0.78 0.22 
P  w   m    
 Rrf 
 ( w ) (  P )1/ 4 
1/ 4
 
 Pe  1P m &  we  1w m

Rights Reserved
141
12/1/2011
Polymer Injection Process
a) Slug of Polymer Solution

b) Buffer Zone
c) Chase Water

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Polymer Injection Process

Polymer floods are conducted by sequentially injecting:
a) injected a slug of polymer solution (approximately 25 to

50% of the reservoir pore volume)
b) fresh water buffer zone contains polymer with a decreasing
polymer concentration (a grading or taper)
c) chase water to drive the buffer zone, polymer slug and the
developed oil bank toward the production wells.

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
142
12/1/2011
Grading of the Buffer Zone:

Because the chase water-polymer mobility ratio is unfavorably, the chase
water tends to finger through the polymer slug and gradually dilute the
trailing edge of the slug. To minimize the effect of this unfavorable mobility
ratio, traditionally a fresh water buffer zone contains polymer with a
decreasing polymer concentration that separates the chase water from the
polymer slug.
The grading of the buffer zone solution is designed in a way

that the viscosity of leading edge of the buffer zone is equal to the viscosity
of the polymer slug; while the viscosity of the trailing edge of the buffer
solution is equal to the viscosity of the chase water.

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Polymer flooding as a Secondary Recover Process

Production
Injection well
Well
Only Oil & Water Only Oil is

Are flowing flowing
Residual Oil
Oil Bank Oil Bank
Chase Buffer Polymer

Water Zone Slug
Water Bank Connate
water
143
12/1/2011
Polymer Performance
Polymer flooding can yield a significant increase in oil recovery as compared to
conventional water flooding techniques, as shown schematically below:
Oil Recovery
Water Flood
Time
Polymer Flood -
FIELD PERFORMANCE
Sanand Field, India
125 650
100 620
EOR OIL
75 590
Projected
50 560
25 530
0 500
1989 1991 1993 1995
144
12/1/2011
Polymer Grading (Courtenay, France)

Rights Reserved
Polymer Flood Oil Production(Courtenay, France

Rights Reserved
145
12/1/2011
Polymer Flood – FIELD PROJECTS

Project Flood Type Formation Polymer Rec., %OIP
1 Taber Manville South Secondary Sandstone PAA 2
2 Pembina " " " 0
3 Wilmington " " " 0
4 East Colinga " " Biopolymer 0
5 Skull Creek South " " PAA 8
6 Skull Creek Newcastle " " " 10
7 Oerrel " " " 23
8 Hankensbuettel " " " 13
9 Owasco " " " 7
10 Vernon " " " 30
11 Northeast Hallsville " Carbonate " 13
12 Hamm " Sandstone " 9
13 Sage Spring Cr. Unit A " " " 1.2
14 West Semlek " " " 5
15 Stewart Ranch " " " 8
16 Kummerfeld " " " 6
17 Huntington Beach " " " 4
18 North Stanley Tertiary " " 1.1
19 Eliasville Caddo Tertiary Carbonate " 1.8
20 North Burbank Tertiary Carbonate " 2.5
Simulator
• TA.exe (this is the driver program)
• TAREK.exe (The simulator)
Three Files are needed to run the simulator:

• TA.dat (Initialization File)
• TA.Sim (Simulation File)
• TA.out (Output File)
Be SURE to use Notepad when you open

TA.dat & TA.sim (Remember that PLEASE)
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & AssociEtes, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
292
146
12/1/2011
STEPS TO RUN THE MODEL

Step 1: Step 2:
1) Click on: TA.exe 1) Click on: TA.exe
2) Select: Initialization 2) Select: Simulation Run
Run 3) Open: TA.sim this file
3) Open: TA.dat with contains wells info
Notepad and Enter 4) Click on: Tarek.exe
Missing Reservoir Data (this is a MUST STEP)
4) Click on: Tarek.exe
(this is a MUST STEP)
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd.
11/21/2011
All Rights Reserved
Initialization File: TA.dat

! 3) Reservoir Model Grid Dimensions
! **********************************
10 10 1 ! x,y, and z blocks
! 4) x-direction Grid Block Lengths Each time you see

! ********************************* The Warning message;
you must enter some data
! Warning Warning Warning
! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
! Please, enter below the x-direction grid dimension (length)
! for each grid block. 10 values MUST BE entered :
! *************************************************
10*300 You enter the data
! 5) y-direction Grid Block Lengths
! *********************************
! Warning Warning Warning

! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
! Please, enter below the y-direction grid dimension (length)
! for each grid block. 10 values MUST BE entered :
! *************************************************
10*300 You enter the data
147
12/1/2011
Open the Following Files with EXCEL to Make Plots

(e.g. GasRec.dat, FieldQg.dat,…etc)
File Name Contents

--------------------- ---------------------------------------------
1- Summary.dat > History Matching info.& Well data
2- DailyQ.dat > Field Daily Flow Rates
3- OilRec.dat > Field Oil Recovery Factor
4- GasRec.dat > Field Gas Recovery Factor
5- FieldQg.dat > Field Monthly Flow Rates
6- WellQw.dat > Well Monthly Water Flow Rates
7- GasQ.dat > Field Total Daily Gas Flow Rate
8- WellQg.dat > Monthly Gas Flow Rates/well
9- Pmap.dat > Pressure Map
10- Sgmap.dat > Gas Saturation Map
11- Swmap.dat > Water Saturation Map

295
Modeling a Polymer Flood

Compare with Waterflood
 Grid dimensions= 10 x 10 x 1
 Reservoir dimensions= ∆X=300 ft, ∆Y=300 ft, ∆Z=20 ft
 # of wells= 2 wells
 Depth to top= 5000 ft
 Start date= Jan 1, 1990
 Total Thickness = 20 ft
 Soi= 0.80
 Simulation time= 10000 days
148
12/1/2011
• Initial Pressure =3000 psia

• 30o API
• Temperature 150 oF Layer 1
• Gas gravity=0.65 Kx, md 20
• Sor = 0.30 Ky, md 20

Kz, md 1.
• Sgc = 0.02
ᶲ 0.20
• Swc = 0.20 h, ft 20
• GOR=200 scf/STB ∆Z, ft 20
• Model will calculate Pb
• Pressure at 5020 ft =3000 psi
• Minimum Pwf = 300 psi
1 2 10
1
2
Layer 1
Kx, md 20
Ky, md 20
Kz, md 1.
ᶲ 0.20
h, ft 20
∆Z, ft 20
10
149
12/1/2011
Polymer Properties
3.00 ! Polymer viscosity
200.0 ! Polymer concentration ppm
0.7000 ! Polymer mixing parameter
10.000 ! Polymer adsorption; ugm/gm
2.400 ! Rock density, gm/cc
2.1600 ! Residual Resistance Factor
0.3000 ! Residual oil saturation
9.700 ! Power-Law K
0.770000 ! Power-Law n
Injection Rate = 350 bbl/day
Surfactant Slug and Micellar

Solution Flood

Reserved
150
12/1/2011
Oil Recovery Equation
ED can be Improved with

Alkali and Surfactant
ED = f (σ )
S o ( PV )
N P  E D E A EV
Bo
EA & EV
can be Improved
with Polymer
EA = f (λ )

Rights Reserved
Surfactant Slug and Micellar Solution Flood

Oil recovery processes using surfactant are
classified as:
a)Surfactant-Polymer slug “SP”

b)Micellar-Polymer “MP”
c)Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer “ASP”
151
12/1/2011
“SURFACTANTS”
a) Soaps or Soap-like substances
b) Contains two parts: “head” of the molecule is attracted to
and soluble in water ( Called “hydrophilic”); “tail” is attracted
to and soluble in oil (Called “Oleophilic”)
c) This dual attracting nature of these surfactants that enables
them to solubilize oil and water
d) One type of surfactants that is commonly used in the industry
is petroleum sulfonate. This chemical agent is produced from
hydrocarbons ranging from LPG to the crude oil itself. The
chemistry of the petroleum sulfonates are very complex and
traditionally they be described by their molecular weights
that vary widely from 350 – 550.
Surfactant Slug Injection Process

Preflush
the objective of the preflush is to condition the reservoir by injecting a brine
solution prior to the injection of the surfactant slug. The brine solution is
designed to lower the salinity of the reservoir existing water phase so that
mixing with surfactant will not cause the loss of the surfactant interfacial
property. The preflush solution volume is typically ranging from 50 to 100%
pore volume.
Surfactant slug
the volume of the surfactant slug ranges between 5 – 15% pore volumes in
field applications. Extensive laboratory studies show that the minimum the
minimum slug size is 5% pore volume in order to effective oil displacement
and recovery.
Mobility Buffer
the surfactant slug is displaced by a mobility buffer solution with varying
polymer concentrations between the slug and chase water. The mobility
buffer solution separating chase water and the surfactant slug prevents rapid
slug deterioration from the trailing edge of the surfactant slug. This process of
injecting and designing a mobility buffer solution is essential and integral
process in all chemical flooding techniques in order to minimize the chemical
slug size required for efficient and economical oil recovery.
152
12/1/2011

Rights Reserved
Production
Injection well
Well
Oil & Water Oil and Gas

Are flowing are flowing
Gas
Chemical Oil Bank Oil Bank

Slug
Chase Buffer (Micellar,

Surfactant,
Water Zone ASP)
Water Bank Connate
water
Figure 6-25. Chemical Flood as a Secondary Recover Process
153
12/1/2011
Production
Injection well
Well
Oil & Water Only Water is

Are flowing flowing
Oil Bank Residual

Chemical Oil
Slug
Injected water
Chase Buffer (Micellar, Water Bank From
Surfactant,
Water Zone ASP) Water Flood
Figure 6-26. Chemical Flood as an EOR Process
Micellar Flood
Is another variation of the surfactant slug process with various
labeled as:
Micellar solutions Flood

MaraFlood
 Micro emulsions Flood, etc.
The chemical slug essentially contains other chemicals that added to

it. The Micellar Solution is a type of surfactant solution slug that is
composed of the following five main ingredients:
a) Surfactant 4% to10%
b) Hydrocarbon 4% to 80%
c) Co-surfactant (alcohol) ≈4%
d) Electrolyte ≈1%
e) Water 10% to 92%
154
12/1/2011
I. Preflush Bank
In all types of chemical floods, often the composition of the
reservoir water phase has an adverse effect on the injected
chemical slug. Therefore, floods are traditionally started by first
injecting a preflush bank of water which is compatible with the
chemical slug solution and displaces the formation brine out of the
reservoir
II. Co-Surfactant
Because one of the main problems in any chemical flood process
is the adsorption of the chemical agent (surfactant) on the
surface of the porous media, the co-surfactant (alcohol) is
added to the solution slug to reduce adsorption of the surfactant
to the eservoir rock.
III. Electrolyte
The electrolyte is usually a SALT such as sodium chloride or
ammonium sulfate, is added to the Micellar solution to adjust and
control the changes in the viscosity of Micellar solution as it
contacts the reservoir water phase.
Electrolyte
155
12/1/2011
Mobility Control and Design

The mobility is perhaps one of the most important controlling properties
that must be considered when designing a chemical or miscible injection
process. A properly designed chemical or miscible process must have a
solution slug with mobility that equal to or less than the mobility of the
stabilized displaced fluid bank; i.e.:
λslug < λdisplaced bank
The minimum total relative mobility is designated as the maximum

required mobility of the chemical slug. The viscosity of the chemical slug
is adjusted the concentration of polymer in the slug to achieve the
optimum solution mobility.
100%
kro
krw
0%
k rw k ro

Total Relative Mobility w o
λw + λo
Minimum Total Mobility
0% Sw 100%
Figure 6-27. Total relative permeability vs. water saturation

156
12/1/2011
Designing the Mobility Buffer Zone

I. Due to the unfavorable mobility between the chase water drive and the
mobility buffer solution, the drive water will penetrate and bypass the
mobility buffer and the chemical slug. Therefore, the volume of
mobility buffer must be large enough to protect the slug; usually will
require 50 to 100% of reservoir pore volume.
II. Using a polymer concentration grading of the mobility buffer solution

will decrease the rate of chase water penetration and improve the
economics of the process. Although different grading procedures
can be used, a semi-logarithmic relationship is a simple approach for
designing the buffer zone.
Chase Water Chemical

6 5 4 3 2 1
µ =1 cp Slug; µ =30
Graded Mobility Buffer µ of Chemical
30 X Slug
µ of
20
Batch #1
10
Viscosity
5.0
µ of
Batch #6
1.0 X
Chase 6 5 4 3 2 1
Water Batch #
Figure 6-28. Grading the Mobility Buffer
157
12/1/2011

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Class Problem
Given the following data; design a tapered buffer zone solution of 60% reservoir
pore volume Assume that 6 batches of equal volumes will be injected, i.e. each
10% reservoir pore volume.
Viscosity of the chemical slug “µslug” = 30 cp
Viscosity of the chase water “µChase” = 1.0 cp
158
12/1/2011
30
X
10
X
Viscosity
X
X
Batch 6 Batch 5 Batch 4 Batch 3 Batch 2 Batch 1
1
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Figure 6-29. Grading the Mobility Buffer for Example 6-5

Rights Reserved
Micellar floods – Core Flood TESTS

“A MUST”
100
Henry S
Henry E & Henry W
80 119-R
60 Wilkins
40
Dedrick
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Micellar Slug Size, %PV

Rights Reserved
159
12/1/2011
Micellar flood –
TYPICAL PERFORMANCE
1,000 10
Oil Cut
100 1
Oil Rate
10 0.1
Dec. 81 Dec. 82 Dec. 83 Dec. 84 Dec. 85
micellar
injection
Rights Reserved
Micellar-Polymer Projects
Illinois basin
Chemical
Chemical
Cost per
Size, Pore Chemical Incremental Incremental Cost
Project Location BBL Pore
Acre Volume, BBL * Cost, $ Oil, BBL * Oil, Vp
Volume,
$/BBL
$/BBL
119-R IL 40 1,635,000 3,119,000 243,200 0.149 $1.91 $12.82

219-R IL 113 3,032,000 5,559,000 400,000 0.132 $1.83 $13.90
Salem IL 60 3,571,000 12,636,000 512,100 0.143 $3.54 $24.67
M-120 IL 407 16,575,000 14,385,000 1,387,400 0.084 $0.87 $10.37
Note that the chemical cost per incremental barrel of oil

produced varies from about
© 2006Tarek $10-
Ahmed $25 for
& Associates, micellar/polymer
Ltd. All
floods. Rights Reserved
160
12/1/2011
Applications of Micellar Flood

o API >20o
o Viscosity <35 cp
o So >35 %
oK >10 md
oT <200oF
o Depth See temperature
o Formation SS
o Thickness Not critical
Micellar Oil Recovery

RF = ED (EA EV)
ED ≈ 90-100%
Issues and Concerns:
1) Costs
2) Adsorption
3) The difficulty of predicting Micellar flooding efficiencies
4) Laboratory studies bear little resemblance to the field
results because:
- improper scaling
- oversimplification of the reservoir
161
12/1/2011
Advantages
1. High displacement and areal sweep efficiencies
2. Generally speaking; where ever a waterflood has
been successful, Micellar flood may also be
applicable
3. In many cases where waterflooding was a failure
because of poor mobility relationships, Micellar could
be successful because of the required mobility
control.

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Disadvantages
1. Main disadvantage is the large amounts of high cost
chemicals needed
2. Large expenditures must be made very early in the
life of the project; most of it during the first year
3. In a depleted waterflood reservoir, only water is
produced for ½ to 2 years depending upon Sor and
pattern size
4. Adsorption of surfactant and stability of the slug
under reservoir conditions
5. determining slug size
6. Injectivity problems

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
162
12/1/2011
Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer
“ASP”

Reserved
ASP Flood
The Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer “ASP” technology uses similar
mechanisms as in the Micellar flood technique that is designed
to mobilize the residual oil. The ASP technology is essentially
based on combining:
A. interfacial-tension-reducing chemicals with

B. mobility control chemical to improve the overall
displacement efficiency and increase the incremental oil
recovery.
163
12/1/2011
The Alkali:
The technology relies on reducing the expensive surfactant concentration by
20 to 70 folds by adding the much lower-cost Alkali as one of the main
ingredients of the injected ASP slug.
The alkali has the natural ability to generate in-situ surfactants by

interaction with the residual oil if the oil contains natural organic acids; most
commonly are the naphthenic acids. Therefore, lowering the slug cost
significantly by reducing the amount of the required commercial surfactants.
The additional benefits of using sodium carbonate (alkali) include:
a) It reduces the adsorption of surfactant and polymer on the rock

b) It alters the wettability of the formation to become a “more water-wet”;
or to change the wettability from an oil-wet to a water-wet system
The design of an ASP flooding process must achieve three main

objectives:
1. propagation of the chemicals to contact and displace the residual oil

with 100% displacement efficiency
2. complete volumetric coverage of the area of the interest by controlling
the slug mobility through optimizing the polymer concentration in the
solution
3. injection of enough chemicals and slug size to account for retention
and slug breakdown by adsorption
Achieving these objectives is significantly affected by the design and

selection of the chemicals used in formulating the injected slug. The two
most common alkaline agents used for ASP flooding are:
1. Soda ash (Sodium Carbonate “Na2CO3”) and

2. Caustic soda (Sodium Hydroxide “Noah”).
164
12/1/2011
As in all types of chemical flooding techniques, ASP flood proceeds in the four
traditional distinct phases); these are:
a) Preflush:
Often the composition of the brine in a reservoir has an adverse effect on
the ASP solution. To correct this problem and separate the hard formation
brine from the slug, floods are started by first injecting a preflush bank of
water ahead of the slug. This preflush water, which is compatible with the
ASP solution, flushes the formation brine out of the reservoir.
b) ASP Slug:
The slug size can range from 15-30% pore volume. The slug formulation
is similar to that of the Micellar slug except that much of the surfactant is
replaced by the low-cost alkali so slugs can be much larger but overall
cost is lower. As the slug moves through the formation, it displaces 100%
of the oil contacted in a miscible type displacement; however; EA & EV
are controlled by the mobility ratio. A pre-determined amount of polymer
is added to the ASP slug to adjust its mobility to approach, or be less than,
the total mobility of the oil-water.
c) Mobility Buffer:
A displacing solution is required to displace the ASP slug through the
reservoir. A favorable mobility between the displacing solution and the
ASP slug is also desired. If water is used as the displacing fluid, an
unfavorable mobility ratio might exist. This would result in reduced areal
sweep efficiency and in water fingering through the ASP slug – diluting
and dissipating the slug. To protect the slug, a mobility buffer of thickened
water is injected immediately behind the slug. This thickened water is a
solution of water and polymer. The viscosity of the polymer bank is
graded from high viscosity behind the ASP slug to a low value at the
trailing edge of the polymer bank. This grading is accomplished by varying
the polymer concentration in the solution. This graduated bank is less
costly and achieves a more favorable mobility ratio between the chase
water and the polymer bank. The minimum size of the polymer bank is in
the range of 50% of pore volume.
d) Chase Water:
The mobility buffer is displaced by chase water until the economic limit of
the project is reached.
165
12/1/2011

Rights Reserved
For a Successful ASP Flood

1) Core Flood is a MUST (Adsorption)
2) Fluid Composition for Identifying the Organic Acid Groups
3) Testing Reservoir Water For Proper Surfactant
4) Designing the Slug and Slug Volume
5) New Chemical Additives
6) Pilot Flood; We Need to Learn
7) Possibility of Using ASP as Secondary Recovery Process
Possibility of Using ASP (or any other EOR Process) as

Secondary Recovery Process; is gaining Momentum
Rights Reserved
166
12/1/2011
Chemical Costs
A rough estimation of the chemical costs is listed below:
Surfactant Prices:
Prices range from: $0.36-$0.75 per active pound, or
$2.75 - $6.10 per barrel of injected solution.
Alkali Prices:
Prices range from: $0.06 to $0.15 per pound.
Polymer Prices:
Prices vary from: $1.15 per dry pound to a high of $1.45
As an alternative is to build a polymer mixing plant and purchase polymer at a lower cost per
pound; Polymer can be available from commercial suppliers in a self-contained polymer mixing
plant for an increase in the price per pound of polymer. This provides an economic benefit by
distributing the mixing plant costs over the duration of the polymer injection
How to Minimize The

Capital Cost and Environmental Impact ?
The Potential of Detecting and the Reuse of the

Chemicals in the Produced Oil

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
167
12/1/2011
Field & Core Flood Tests

Reserved
ASP vs. MICELLAR FLOOD -

Lab Results – Mitsue Oil Core Floods
Micellar Flood ASP Flood

100 100
Slug 5% Buffer 50% Alkali 5%,Surfactant 10%,Polymer 60%
92% OIP
Oil Cut,%; Cum. Recovery,% OIP
Oil Cut,%; Cum. Recovery,% OIP
80 80
Soi 32% Soi 38% 80% OIP
60 60
40 40
Oil Cut Oil Cut
20 20
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pore Volumes Injected Pore Volumes Injected
168
12/1/2011
Industry Experience With

ASP Flood
Currently; there are several ongoing ASP floods with reported promising
responses; include:
1) The La Salina Field in eastern cost of Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela
2) The Viraj oil field of Cambay Basin in India
3) Flooding Test in Central Xing2 Area of Daqing Oilfield, China (2-pilots)
4) Major expansion underway in Daqing Oilfield, China
5) The White Castle Field, Louisiana, near-offshore Gulf of Mexico (Shell)
6) Maracaibo Lake, West Venezuela
7) 5 reservoirs in Argentina (Designed by SURTEK, Golden, CO)

Rights Reserved
Tanner
Alkaline-Surfactant- Polymer Flood
Tanner Field
11/21/2011 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All
Rights Reserved
169
12/1/2011
ASP Flood in the Tanner Field
Depth 8,750 ft
Temperature 175 °F
Pore Volume 2,528 Mbbl
Thickness 25 ft
Average Porosity 20%
Average Permeability 200 md
Oil API Gravity 21°
Oil Viscosity 11 cp
Water Viscosity 0.45 cp
Mobility Ratio 3.2
Tanner Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Flood

Net Pay Isopach
ASP
Injection Well

11/21/2011
Reserved
170
12/1/2011
Tanner, Wyoming
Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Flood
Timeline History
Primary Production April 1991

Waterflood October 1997
Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Solution May 2000
Polymer Drive June 2002
Water Flush January 2005

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Tanner Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Flood Radial

Coreflood Comparison
100
100
Caustic Soda
90
90
(%OOIP)
Recovery (%OOIP)
NaOH-ORS-41HF-Alcoflood 1275A Flood
80
80
%)
(Volume %)
70
70
Na2CO3-Petronate EOR 2094
Oil Recovery
Cut (Volume
-Alcoflood 1275A Flood

60
60
Soda Ash
50
50 Waterflood
Cumulative Oil
Oil Cut
40
40
Cumulative
Oil
30
30
20
20
10
10
00
0.0
0.0 1.0
1.0 2.0
2.0 3.0
3.0 4.0
4.0 5.0
5.0
Cumulative Produced Fluids
Cumulative Produced Fluids (PV)(PV)
171
12/1/2011

Injected Solution
1.0 wt% Caustic Soda

0.1 wt% active ORS-41HF
1000 mg/L Alcoflood 1275A

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Total Field Performance

ASP Flood
100.0 100,000
Waterflood Oil Cut
Monthly Oil Production (bbls)
Alkaline-Surfactant-
Polymer Flood
ASP
May 2000
% Oil Cut
calculated
continued
10.0 waterflood 10,000
oil cut
Oil Production
Waterflood
calculated
Primary continued
waterflood
oil rate
1.0 1,000
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Total Field Performance
172
12/1/2011
Well Performance
Tanner 24-30
100.0 100,000
Oil Cut
Polymer Flood

Waterflood
10.0 10,000
% Oil Cut
Oil Production
1.0
Primary 1,000
0.1 100
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Well Performance
Tanner 24-30
100.0 100,000
Oil Cut
Polymer Flood
Waterflood
10.0 10,000
calculated
% Oil Cut
continued
waterflood
Oil Production oil cut
1.0
Primary 1,000
calculated
continued
waterflood
oil rate
0.1 100
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
173
12/1/2011
Tanner Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Flood Production

Compared to Eight Minnelusa Waterfloods
100 ASP as
Secondary Recovery
Tanner
arrows indicate
start of ASP
for Tanner
May 2000
% Oil Cut
10
Field Comparisons
Camridge
Total Tanner Field
Tanner 24-30
Tanner 22-31
Average Waterflood
1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
11/21/2011 Cumulative ©
Oil Produced
2006Tarek After Injection
Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Begins (Vp)
Rights Reserved

Recovery Summary through July 2005
Ultimate Oil Recovery 65.0 %OOIP
Primary and Waterflood 48.0 %OOIP
ASP Increment Recovery 17.0 %OOIP
Cost per Incremental Barrel

(Includes Chemical and Facilities) $4.49
174
12/1/2011
ASP PILOT – Daqing, China

100
Oil Rate
50
Oil Cut
20
10
1993 1994 1995 1996

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved

Conclusions
• Tanner Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer flood

was technically and economically successful.
• 17% OOIP incremental oil
• cost of chemicals, plant, and design

- $5.85/ per incremental barrel
• rate of return - 71.2%
• payout – 2.5 years

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
175
12/1/2011
Shell Marmul Chemical

Flood
Polymer development and
surfactant trials
On-going ASP Pilot Flood in

the Viraj Oil Field- India
• Pre-flush: 200 m3/day for a week
• ASP Slug: 20% PV slug having a composition of 1.5
wt% alkali, 0.2 wt % surfactant, and 800 ppm
polymer.
• Mobility Buffer: Total 30 %PV of a series of graded
concentrations of polymer solution. 1st slug is
10%PV of 600ppm polymer solution; 2nd slug is
10%PV 400ppm, and 3rd slug is 10%PV of 200ppm
• Chase water: 60%PV of chase water
176
12/1/2011
ASP and Other EOR Projects in

Offshore Oil Fields
• Space and weight restrictions
• High capital cost and economics
• Large well spacing gives less detailed information
about the reservoir; especially degree of continuity
between wells
• Temperature limitations
• seawater-based process would require higher
concentration of polymer
• One of the Largest current offshore EOR projects is
N2; Cantarell Field in The Gulf of Mexico. It has been
very Successful at Increasing Oil Recovery

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Current Offshore Applications

oLa Salina Field, Venezuela
oWill be the first offshore ASP Pilot in the World
oWill use existing platform instead of a barge
oSlug:
- Alkali: 0.75 wt% Soda Ash
- Surfactant: 0.1 wt%
- Polymer: 800 mg/L
177
12/1/2011
ASP in Carbonate Reservoirs
• Traditionally Applied to Sandstone; however; has

been Tested in Carbonate Formations at the
Laboratory Scale
• Recent Studies Indicate that ASP can Change the

wettability of the Carbonate minerals from Oil
Wet to Water Wet
• an ASP Flood is currently being tested at The

Mauddud Carbonate Reservoir in Bahrain
Recent Developments
• New Surfactant - SS-6066 & SS-6066A showed
most promising performance in terms of
solubility, stability, and interfacial tension
• New “co-surfactant” to reduce adsorption-
ANTISORBTM1416
• Tested in the Chihuido de la Sierra Negra field,
Argentina

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
178
12/1/2011
Advantages of ASP Flood

1. It displaces all the oil it contacts
2. High displacement and areal sweep efficiencies
3. Mobility of the Slug can be optimized to
maximizing the volumetric sweep efficiency
4. Field operation is a little different from a water
flood except for additional of mixing and
filtering equipment.
5. If meets conditions and designing criteria; it can
recover additional 20% OOIP
Disadvantages
1. Main disadvantage is the large amounts of high cost
chemicals needed
2. Large expenditures must be made very early in the
life of the project; most of it during the first year
3. In a depleted waterflood reservoir, only water is
produced for ½ to 2 years depending upon Sor and
pattern size
4. Degradation of chemicals at high temperature.
6. Injectivity problem
7. Not well suited for carbonate reservoirs
179
12/1/2011
Miscible Gas Flood
Issues to Address Before

Miscible Gas Injection
Hard to determine:
1. Sor from core analysis might not be representative for the entire
reservoir.
(Sor)res = f [(Sor)core, M, V]
2. Determining the distribution of remaining oil is a challenge
3. Sorm is a key property for Simulation and Screening Studies
4. Slim Tube or Core Flood ?

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
180
12/1/2011
Miscible Gas Flood

The reduction of interfacial or surface tension between the displacing and
displaced fluids is one of the major keys that contribute to the success of
the miscible injection process.
In contrast to the definition of immiscibility, two fluids are considered

miscible when they can by mix together in all proportions and resulting
mixtures remain single phase. Because only one phase results from
mixtures of miscible fluids, there are no interfaces and consequently no
interfacial tension between fluids.
It is apparent from the definition of capillary number “Nc”

that the interface between oil and displacing phase is
eliminated completely and the two phases become
miscible when σ ≈ 0
 k   p 
N   o 
1.0
c     L 
 
( S or ) after Range of Range of

Waterflood Miscible flood
( S or )before
0
Critical Nc
NC
181
12/1/2011
Impact of Remaining Residual Oil on Ultimate Recovery
Sor can be reduced to its lowest possible value with displacement efficiency
ED approaching 100%. This is essentially the objective of any form of
miscible displacements (e.g. chemical, gas, etc.). Therefore, classifying a
system as miscible or immiscible can have a substantial impact on ultimate
oil recovery by fluid injection. The ultimate oil recovery factor “RF” for any
forms of secondary or tertiary recovery processes is defined by:
RF = ED EA ED
They Key for a Sucessful EOR Project:
 k   p  S oi  S or
N   o 
c     L  ED 
  S oi
Miscibility
There are two types of miscible displacements, these are:
First-contact miscible “FCM” displacement:

Displacements in which the injection fluid and the in-situ reservoir fluid form
a single phase mixture for all mixing proportions; e.g.:
I. Chemical Flood (Micellar, ASP,…etc)
II. LPG
Multiple contact miscible “MCM” displacement:

Processes in which the injected fluid and the reservoir oil are not miscible in
the first contact but miscibility could develop after multiple contacts (dynamic
miscibility). These processes are categorized into:
I. Vaporizing CO2 and lean gas drive; alternatively is called “high

pressure lean gas Injection”, e.g. CO2, N2, Air,…etc
II. Condensing rich gas drive, and
III. Combined vaporizing-condensing drive.
182
12/1/2011
First-Contact-Miscible “FCM”
Displacement

Rights Reserved
First-Contact-Miscible “FCM” Displacement

Some injection fluids mix directly with the reservoir crude oil in all proportions and
their mixtures remain single phase. This displacement process is classified as “first-
contact miscible displacement”. Liquefied petroleum gas products (LPG) such as
ethane, propane, and butane are the common solvents that have been used for first-
contact miscible flooding “FCM”, i.e. miscible with reservoir crude oils immediately
on contact. The LPG products are miscible with oil only as long as they remain in
the liquid state, i.e. when reservoir temperatures below their critical temperatures
and at pressures at or above their vapor pressures.
Ethane Propane N-Butane
T, oF P, psia T, oF P, psia T, oF P,psia
50 460 50 92 50 22
90 709 100 190 100 52
150 360 150 110
200 590 200 198
206 617 250 340
300 530
305 550
183
12/1/2011
Production
Injection well
Well
Oil & Water Only Water is

Are flowing flowing
Oil Bank Residual

Chase LPG Oil
Water Gas Water Chase
Water Gas Slug
Gas
Water Bank
Injected water
From
Connate Water Water Flood
Figure 6-30. LPG Flood as an EOR Process
Chase Gas is a PROBLEM !!!

Ethane Propane N-Butane
T, oF P, psia T, oF P, psia T, oF P,psia
50 460 50 92 50 22
90 709 100 190 100 52
150 360 150 110
200 590 200 198
206 617 250 340
300 530
305 550
LPG Slug
problem
184
12/1/2011
Chase Gas is a PROBLEM !!!

The chase gas must be miscible with the hydrocarbon slug to prevent
deterioration of the slug at the trailing edge.

11/21/2011
Industry Experience
LPG Flood
Parameter South Ward South Cuyama Johnson Field, Burkett Unit, Adena Field,
Field, CA Field, CA Neb. Kan. Colo.
Arco ARCO Marathon phillips Union
Depth, ft 2400-2500 4300 4580 2100 5560
Pattern 5-spot peripheral Entire field 5-spot 5-spot
Slug size 5% PV 5.4% PV 8.85% PV 6.5 % PV 9% PV
RF 37 % 33% 64%
bbl oil/bbl 1.5 3 5 0.75 0.6

C3
185
12/1/2011
Applications
• API >23o
• Viscosity <10 cp
• So >30 %
• k >not critical if uniform
• T Must need exceed 206 oF for C3
• Depth >2500 ft, restricted be temperature
• Formation SS or carbonate
• Thickness relatively thin
Advantages
1. Displaces essentially all residual oil it contacts
2. Requires lower pressure than that is needed
for miscible gas injection; there; can be used
in shallower reservoirs
3. Can be used as secondary or tertiary method.

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
186
12/1/2011
Disadvantages
1. Areal and Vertical seep efficiencies are usually low
2. Sizing of the slug is difficult
3. Miscibility can be lost if the slug is dispersed and
dissipated as it moves through the reservoir; can’t
regain miscibility it back
4. Stability of the slug under reservoir conditions
6. Costs

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Multiple-Contact-Miscible Displacement
“MCM”

Rights Reserved
187
12/1/2011
Dynamic Miscibility
The injected gas at a certain pressure can achieve miscibility after multiple
contacts with reservoir crude oil, this miscibility and is termed “(dynamic
miscibility). This dynamic displacement mechanism during the process is
described as the in-situ manufacture of a miscible slug. Miscibility is
achieved in this process by in-situ mass transfer “vaporizing “ or
“condensing” of components resulting from repeated contacts of oil with the
injection fluid.
This process of developing miscibility is as classified as “multiple contact

miscible displacement”. It should be pointed out that because mixtures in
the reservoir miscible region remain as a single phase, the wettability of the
rock and relative permeability lose their significance since there is no
interface between fluids. However, the mobility ratio has a significant effect on
the recovery efficiency simply because it is a strong function of the viscosity
ratio of the miscible solution and the displaced oil.
Ternary Diagram
A valuable approach for representing the phase behavior of multicomponent
hydrocarbon mixtures and their interaction with a displacing gas is the use of the
pseudo-ternary diagram. The components of the reservoir fluid are grouped into
three pseudocomponents located on the corners of the ternary plot. One possible
grouping that has been used frequently includes the following mixed components:
Component 1:
represents a volatile pseudocomponent and is composed of methane,
nitrogen and carbon dioxide located on the uppermost of the triangle,
Component 2:
represents a pseudocomponent that is composed of intermediate
hydrocarbon components such as ethane through hexane. The
component is located on the lower right corner of the plot. It should be
pointed out that sometimes CO2 is included with the intermediate
components
Component 3:
is essentially the heptanes-plus fraction “C7+” and is located on the lower
left corner of the plot.
188
12/1/2011
Each corner of the triangular CO2+ N2+C1

plot represents 100% of a
100%
given pseudocomponent,
progressive from 0% at the
opposite side of each corner to
100 % (usually with
incremental step size of 10%).
0
0
C7+
100% 0 C2-C6
100%
Understanding and Use of the Triangular Diagram

CO2+ N2+C1
100%
B 90%
70%
y
z 50%
0%
C
A 20%
x 70%
10%
C7+ 90%
C2-C6
100% 100%
Bubble-point Curve
189
12/1/2011
The Triangular Diagram

1. An area in the graph is surrounded by the curve “ACB” is called the
phase envelope and represents the phase behavior of mixtures with
varying combinations of the three pseudocomponents. For example,
point “Z” in Figure (6-31) represents a mixture that is composed of 50%
of “C1+N2+CO2”, 20% of “C2-C6” and 30% of C7+.
2. Any system of the three components whose composition is inside the
phase envelope, e.g. point z, will form two phases, a saturated gas
phase with a composition represented by point “y” and a saturated
liquid phase composition represented by point “x”. The dashed line
connecting points x and y and passing through point Z is called the tie
line.
3. The segment “AC” of the curve is called the bubble-point curve and
represents the composition of the saturated liquid, with the segment
“BC” is called the dewpoint curve representing the composition of the
saturated gas. The dewpoint curve joins the bubble-point curve at the
plait point (critical point) “C” which indicates that the compositions
and properties of the equilibrium gas and liquid are identical.
Identifying Type of Displacement

There are two additional principals must be recognized when representing
phase behavior relations with the ternary diagram:
A. If the coordinates of the overall composition “z” of a hydrocarbon mixture
place the mixture within the phase envelope, the mixture will form two phases
under the prevailing pressure and temperature; however, when placed
outside that phase envelope the mixture will exist as a single phase.
B. The ternary diagram as shown schematically on the next slide illustrates the
concept and the basic requirement for achieving first contact miscible “FCM”
displacements and identifies the multi-contact miscible “MCM” region. The
illustration shows two different mixtures of hydrocarbon gases and a crude oil
system at a constant pressure and temperature. These three hydrocarbon
systems are:
o Lean gas with a composition as represent by A
o Rich gas (LPG diluted with lean gas) as represent by point D.
o original oil in place with a composition represented by point B
190
12/1/2011
CO2+ N2+C1
100%
y
Tie Line
z
C
x
Oil B D
C7+ C2-C6
100% 100%
Figure 6-32. First and Multiple-Contact Miscible Regions

The differentiation between FCM and MCM is based on whither the straight-line
connecting the composition of the injected fluid with that of oil will or will not cross the
phase envelope. However, the size of the phase envelope depends upon the pressure
and temperature. For a constant temperature, the size of the two phase region will
shrink with increasing the pressure, as shown schematically below. The illustration
suggests that first contact miscibility will be achieved at a pressure equal to P3. This
pressure is termed the minimum miscibility pressure “MMP”.
CO2+ N2+C1
100%
B 90%
A
P3>P2>P1
70%
P3 P2 P 0%
50%
1
C
A 20%
70%
C7+ 90% B 10%

C2-C6
100% 100%
191
12/1/2011
Vaporizing (High pressure) lean gas

Injection

Rights Reserved
Vaporizing (High pressure) lean gas drive:
In vaporizing-gas drive process or high- pressure gas process,

the injected lean gas (e.g. methane, nitrogen, or flue gas) tends
to vaporize the intermediate components (ethane through
hexane) of the reservoir fluid and creates an in-situ miscible
hydrocarbon slug. In this displacement mechanism, miscibility
is achieved at the leading edge of the injected gas front. As the
injected high pressure lean gas contacts the original reservoir
oil, it vaporizes and enriched in intermediate components.
192
12/1/2011
Basic Concept of the

Vaporizing Gas Injection
G
Multiple (Infinite) Contact Miscibility

C1 Multi-contact Miscible
Gas Injection
C1
C7+ C2 – C6
193
12/1/2011
C
Critical Point
High Pressure Lean Gas Injection

“ Methane, Nitrogen, Air, Flue Gas”
a lot of
water
Miscible zone formed by gas

becoming enriched with C2-Cn
Oil Sor
Gas
(C1, N2,..etc) Bank
Water from
H2O flood
Connate Water

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
194
12/1/2011
C1
a lot of
water
C7+ C2 – C6
L = f (Pinj, zi, yinj, Sstart, ..etc)
Oil Sor
Gas Bank
(C1, N2,..etc) Water from
H2O flood
Connate Water
Nitrogen Injection
195
12/1/2011
Industry Experience
With Lean Gas
1. Block 31 Field: Crane County; Texas. Ultimate

RF 60%
2. Fairway Field, Texas: Ultimate RF 50%
3. Hawkins Field, Texas

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Essential Laboratory Tests

For Any Types of Gas Injection
1. Flow Assurance Tests

2. Slim Tube Test
3. Swelling Tests (Very important to match)
4. PVT Tests (Differential, CCE,…etc.)
196
12/1/2011
Advantages Of
Lean Gas Injection
1. Although it does not remove all Sor from the
contacted area; Sor is reduced to a very low value
2. Less expensive than others
3. The miscible front regenerates itself if it is lost at
any point
4. Lean gas is used from the start to finish;
eliminating the difficult determination of slug
size

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Disadvantages Of
Lean Gas Injection
1. Crude oil characteristics must be ideal for
the process to work (rich in CM)
2. Requires high injection pressure; high
compression costs
3. Gravity segregation can exit in highly
permeable reservoirs.
4. The oil should be under-saturated

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
197
12/1/2011
Air Injection

Rights Reserved
Air Injection in Light Oil !!!!!

an Emerging Technology
A. The main idea; O2 in the Injected Air will
React with a Fraction of the Reservoir Oil at
an Elevated Temperature to Produce CO2.
B. The Resulting Flue Gas (mainly N2 and CO2)
will Mobilize the Oil to Production Wells
C. Gas-Oil Mixture may be Immiscible, Partly
Miscible, or Completely Miscible

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
198
12/1/2011
Air Injection in Light Oil !!!!!

an Emerging Technology
A. The application of the In-Situ Combustion “ISC” is associated
with the existence of high T> 660-1120 oF front; i.e. it creates a
heat wave, however; the Air Injection Process “AIP” does not
B. Air injection can be viewed as a conventional gas injection
process
C. low temperature oxidation “LTO” can occur at 150 oF< T< 200
oF and consume all O to Generate flue gas.
2
D. Flue gas comprises of 10-14% CO2 and rest being N2
E. Does NOT suffer from ANY constraint on supply; as in the case

of CO2

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Consumption of O2
20%
Flue gas:
air 85% N2
O2 13% CO2
2% CO
N2
CO2 Oil
N2 O2, CO2, CO &
Original
air CO, Sor, H2O C2-Cn ? H2O
Oil
&
Oil Bank
H2O
H2O
Reaction Zone
199
12/1/2011
Air Injection In
Light Oil Reservoirs !!!
 A total consumption of 7 to 10% of the
remaining oil in place can be expected to
maintain a propagation of the in-situ
oxidation process
 The generated flue gas and steam can:
o Vaporize oil components
o displace the oil at near miscible conditions
o increase oil swelling
o reduce oil viscosity

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Industry Experience with

Air Injection

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
200
12/1/2011
Incremental Oil Recovery

Based on Field Experience
in Hydrocarbon miscible flood:
o Horizontal Flood ≈ 12-15%
o Vertical Flood ≈ 20-30%
in Air Injection:
o Horizontal Flood ≈ 6-10%
o Vertical Flood ≈ 15-20%

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
GOM Experience- 3 BSTB

CO2, N2, Air !!!!
(MMP)Air, N2 = 7500 psi Air, N2
200 Miles from Shore
CO2 Pipeline!!!
CO2
(MMP)CO2 = 3500 psi
201
12/1/2011
Pilot Air Injection

Handil Field, Indonesia “TOTAL”
o Air injection started 2005

o OOIP = 6 MMSTB
o RF by H2O = 26%
o Central processing facilities with a 3MMMscf capacity
o Laboratory data suggests:
 Auto-ignition occurred at 275 oF
 Stable front displacement at 518 oF
 Flue gas: 13% CO2, 3% CO, and 84% N2
Oil Recovery
BP’s Thermal Model
Scenario Total Time NP RF Cum GOR
Years MMSTB % Scf/STB
Depletion 35 15.43 9.14 -
H2O flood 5 years of depletion 77.07 45.68 -
After depteion 30 years of air injection
Air inj 35 years from start 95.80 56.78 2388

Of production
Secondary air recovery 5 years of depletion 93.11 55.19 2402
30 years air injection
Tertiary air injection After 5 years depletion and 83.71 49.61 1509
22.5 years of H2O flood
7.5 years air injection
Teriary air injection After 5 years depletion and 85.73 50.81 1882
10 years of H2O
20 years air injection
202
12/1/2011
Field h, Depth, ft T, oC Pinj Φ μ K, md Q o, Air/oil ratio

m % cp b/D/well scf/bbl
W. Hakberry 10 3000-12000 94 - 27 0.9 300 - -
LA
Sloss 6 6200 94 3600 11 0.8 190 480 16900

Nebraska
Buffalo red- 6 9500 104 4400 17 0.5 5 600 12000

river unit
MPHU
Buffalo - 8500 102 4400 19 0.5 18 2500 10000
Madison CAPA - 8600 99 4400 11 0.5 10 - 20000
Other Fields:
- North sea-Ekofisk; is being considered
- Handil Field, Indonesia, Started 2005
- Wilson basin- N&S Dakota. Started in 1979
- Romania and Russia
Deepwater GOM Experience

VIP Compositional:
• Split to 45 components- Lumped into 16
Components
• Excellent Match with Swelling Test
• IOR (RF)N2&Air = 69%
• IOR (RF)CO2 = 54%
203
12/1/2011
Rich Air Injection !!!

Rights Reserved
Rich Air Injection

Another Emerging Technology
1. Rich Air Injection has Received Considerable Attention

Recently due to several Successful Light-Oil Air Injection
and the Building of Massive N2 Generation Plants for
Offshore EOR
2. Rich Air contains 30% to 40% O2
3. The logic Arises from the Fact that whenever Nitrogen is
Manufactured; Waste gas, Rich in O2, is Produced
4. When Injected; the Generated Combustion Product Gas
is Richer in CO2
5. Can also be used in Heavy Oil and Low Permeability
Reservoirs
11/21/2011 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights
Reserved
204
12/1/2011
Screening Air Injection

Prospects
o μo < 10 cp
o Φ > 15%
o No fracturing and NO FREE GAS or Gas Cap
o T > 140 oF
o K > 10 md
o h > 10 ft
o API > 35o
o So > 50%
11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Advantages
1. An alternative for water injection due to low injectivity
2. reduction in μo, generation of steam and hot water, miscible
effects owing to the vaporized light-oil ends
3. The miscible front regenerates itself if it is lost at any point
4. Injected air/gas is used from the start to finish; eliminating the
difficult determination of slug size
5. Produced Gas can contain 2 gallons of NGL/Mscf
6. The generated flue gas and steam can:
- Vaporize oil components
- displace the oil at near miscible conditions
- increase oil swelling
- reduce oil viscosity

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
205
12/1/2011
Disadvantages
1. Potential problems related to: corrosion,
oxygen production (safety)
2. At high temperature; potential of producing
H2S
3. Might require a pilot test to evaluate risks
and uncertainties
4. Injection well head must be equipped with
dual injection lines; one for air injection and
other for purge water (or N2) line.
11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
Lean Gas
MMP Correlations

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
206
12/1/2011
Correlation #1:
MMP = 9433 – 188x103 F + 1430x103 F2

With
F = I/(MC7+ T2.5)
Where
I = concentration of intermediates, MOL%
T = temperature, °F
MC7+ = molecular weight of C7+
Correlation #2:
MMP = 5568 eR1 + 3641 cR2

With:
R1 = 792.06 [C2 – C5] / W
R2 = 2.158x106 [C1]5.632 / W
Where:
W = Mc7+ T 0.25
T = temperature, °F
C1 = mole fraction of methane
C2 – C5 = mole fraction of C2 – C5
11/21/2011
Correlation #3:
For API < 40:

MMP = 80.14 + 35.35 H + 0.76 H2
Where:
H  M c07.88
 T
0.11
/ [(C2  6 ) 0.64 (C1 ) 0.33 ]
For API > 40:
MMP = -648.5 + 2619.5 H – 1347.6 H2
Where:
H  M c07.48
 T
0.25
(C2  C6 ) 0.12 (C1 ) 0.42 ]
11/21/2011
207
12/1/2011
Class problem:
The Nameless Oil Field under consideration for miscible displacement
by lean gas injection. Estimate the MMP using all available correlations
11/21/2011
Class problem; Estimation with EOS:

by different types of gas injection; these are:
1. 100% C1
2. 100% N2
3. 80% C1 & 20% CO2
Using the PVT simulator:

a) Tune EOS to match saturation pressure of 1936 psig
b) Perform DE, CCE , and Separator Tests on original oil
composition
c) Perform Swelling test on each type of gas injection
d) Estimate the MMP EOS for each type of gas
Separator Test:
1st Stage Separator: 28psig & 130 oF
Stock Tank: 0psig & 60 oF
11/21/2011
208
12/1/2011
Nameless Field
API=40.1 & T=247 oF
Pb= 1936 psig
1sr Stage Separator: 28psig & 130 oF

Stock Tank: 0psig & 60 oF
11/21/2011
PVT from EOS

1. Driver Program: Butte.exe
2. Simulator: Montana.exe
3. Two files:
– PVTall.dat
– PVTall.out

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
209
12/1/2011
PVAall.dat
With Notepad; open PVTall.dat to enter composition,…etc:
&RDW Psat=1936
Temp=247
CO2=0.25
N2=0.88
C1=23.94
C2=11.67
C3=9.36
iC4=1.39
nC4=4.61
iC5=1.50
nC5=2.48
C6=3.26
C7plus=40.66
MWC7plus=196
spgrC7plus=0.8494
&end
11/21/2011
Separator Data
&separator Tsep1=130
Psep1=28
Tsep2=-1
Psep2=-1
Tsep3=-1
Psep3=-1
Tsep4=-1
Psep4=-1
Tsep5=-1
Psep5=-1
Tsep6=-1
Psep6=-1
Tsep7=60
Psep7=0
Tscrub=-1
Pscrub=-1
&end
210
12/1/2011
Injection Gas Composition for

Swelling & MMP Tests
! Description of the Injection Gas
! ----------------------------------------------
! Enter the composition of the injection gas after
! the equal sign (=) :
&INJ CO2inj=0.0
N2inj=0
C1inj=0.8
C2inj=0
C3inj=0
iC4inj=0
nC4inj=0
iC5inj=0
nC5inj=0
C6inj=0
C7inj=0
&end
Rich Gas (Condensing) Gas

Injection

Rights Reserved
211
12/1/2011
CO2+ N2+C1
100%
G
0
0
C7+ L
100% 0 C2-C6
100%
Swelling and Slim Tube

Tests
“A MUST TESTS”
© 2006Tarek Ahmed &

Associates, Ltd. All Rights
Reserved.
212
12/1/2011
Types of Gas Displacement

1) Immiscible
2) Partial Miscible
3) Miscible
Swelling Test
Injection gas (Psat)new
Psat P i.e. Pb or Pd
Original Fluid
(gas or oil) @ Original Fluid Original Fluid
saturation Vt + +
(Vsat)orig Pressure Psat
(Vsat)new
Injection Gas Injection Gas
Hg Hg Hg
A B C
213
12/1/2011
Swelling Test
Injected
Gas
Swollen
Oil
Oil
(Vsat)new /(Vsat)original
CO2
C1
Psat CO2
Swollen C1
Volume
Scf/bbl Scf/bbl
© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
5000
4800
New saturation pressure
4600
4400
4200
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
scf/bbl of Fluid
214
12/1/2011
relative volume vs. volume of gas injected

2.6
2.4
2.2
swelling ratio, (Vsat)new/(Vsat)orig
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
scf/bbl of Fluid
429
Slim Tube Test

Reserved.
215
12/1/2011
Modeling of Miscible Gas Injection

With Black Oil Simulator
Based on Three Functions:
1) Miscibility Function “σ”
2) Viscosity Mixing Parameter “ω”
3) Miscible Phase Relative Permeability “krm”

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
1- Miscibility Function “σ”
P  Pvap

MMP  Pvap
if :
RF   0 , immiscible; i.e. P  Pvap
0    1, Partial; i.e. Pvap  P  MMP
  1, miscible; i.e. P  MMP
immiscible Partial miscible miscible
Pvap MMP

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
216
12/1/2011
1- Miscibility Function “σ”

P  Pvap

MMP  Pvap
if :
P  Pvap ;   0 , immiscible Displacemnet
Pvap  P  MMP 0    1, PartialMiscible Displacement
P  MMP   1, Miscible Displacement.
11/21/2011
2- Viscosity Mixing Parameter “ω”


M o
s
4 log[0.78  0.22 ( M )1/ 4 ]
 1 
log( M )
4
 0.78 0.22 
m    
 ( s ) (  o )1/ 4 
1/ 4
 oe   o1  m &  se   1s   m
217
12/1/2011
3- Miscible Phase Relative Permeability “krm”
 S S   Sg 
k rm   o orm  k row    k rg
1  S w  S orm  1  S w  S orm 
 S S 
(k ro ) eff  (1  ) k ro    o orm  k rm
1  S w  S orm 
 Sg 
(k rg ) eff  (1  ) k rg    k rm
1  S w  S orm 
11/21/2011
CO2 Injection

Rights Reserved
218
12/1/2011
Physical Properties of
CO2

Rights Reserved
219
12/1/2011
You must account for the solubility of CO2 in the Water

(loss of volume )“Problem During WAG Flood”
220
12/1/2011
CO2 Drive Mechanisms

A number of mechanisms take place that may initiate oil displacement when CO2 is
injected into an oil reservoir. CO2 may create a miscible front and hence miscibility
is initiated by extraction of significant amounts of heavier hydrocarbons from C5
through C30, or at different reservoir conditions, CO2 saturates the reservoir fluids
to an extent where the swollen crude is miscible with the trailing CO2 and may
resemble enriched gas drive. This combination of mechanisms enables a portion of
the remaining trapped oil to be mobilized and produced.
The miscible-like recoveries achieved by CO2 were a multiple-contact vaporization

drive mechanism in which CO2 strips intermediates from the liquid until the
composition is rich enough to be miscible with the original oil.
Several laboratory experiments on reservoir fluids using CO2 as the displacing

phase have concluded that more than one mechanism (vaporizing and
condensing) is possible for a CO2-reservoir fluid system and that reservoir
temperature and displacement pressure determine the type of mechanism
(vaporization, condensing or vaporizing/condensing) that will control the
displacement process.
221
12/1/2011
Regardless of how CO2 is injected into the reservoir, oil displacement by CO2
injection relies on a number of mechanisms related to:
The phase behavior of CO2 – crude oil mixtures

Reservoir temperature
Reservoir pressure
Crude oil composition
the dominant displacement characteristics for a given CO2 displacement fall into
one of the five regions based on P & T:
Region I – Low pressure applications

Region II – Intermediate pressure, high temperature applications
Region III – Intermediate pressure, low temperature applications
Region IV – High pressure applications
Region V – High pressure, low temperature (liquid) applications
Co2 Application Regions:

Region I – Low pressure applications
Region II – Intermediate pressure, high temperature applications
Region III – Intermediate pressure, low temperature applications
Region IV – High pressure applications
Region V – High pressure, low temperature (liquid) applications
Region 5
Region 4
Region 1
222
12/1/2011
Low Pressure Applications “Region I”

At reservoir pressure below 1000 psia (Region I), the major effects of CO2 injection
on oil recovery appear due to the solubility of CO2 in the crude oil with the following
adding benefits:
a) Swells the oil
b) Reduces oil viscosity significantly
c) Contributes to internal solution gas drive
d) Increases injectivity
Region I
Intermediate Pressure, High Temperature (>122°F) “Region II”

The CO2 displacement process in this region exhibits:
a) oil swelling
b) viscosity reduction and increased injectivity
c) Vaporizing the crude oil.
Region II
223
12/1/2011
Intermediate Pressure, Low Temperature (<122°F) “Region III”
The CO2 displacement process in this region exhibits:

a) extract the crude’s heavy ends forming CO2 rich liquid mixtures
b) Multiple liquids exist in this region
High Pressure Miscible Applications “Region 4”

At high reservoir pressures (>2000 to 3000 psia ) as represented by Region
4, CO2 may vaporize significant quantities of crude oil so rapidly that multiple-
contact miscibility occurs in a very brief time period and over a very short
reservoir distance
Region 4
Miscible Displacement Region
224
12/1/2011
Applications:
The CO2 miscible process is applicable to a high
percentage of reservoirs. Required conditions are as
follows:
1. Crude oils with gravities above 25 deg API

2. Pressures starting at above 1500 psi and ranging
upward, with 6000 psi being a practical upper limit.
Prospective reservoirs must be of sufficient depth that
they can be operated above the pressure needed for
miscible displacement without parting the formation.
225
12/1/2011
Extensive Network of CO2 Pipelines in The U.S.
226
12/1/2011
227
12/1/2011
Injection Manifold
<< Injection Well

Injection Pressure = 1400 psi
228
12/1/2011
Production Well >>

Back pressure held at
400 psi – wells flow
without artificial lift
Denver Unit Production / Injection History

CO2 miscible flood developed by Shell
229
12/1/2011
Advantages
1. CO2 provides an efficient low pressure miscible displacement for many
reservoirs. The displacement efficiency is high, with the oil saturation
above 5% of pore volume in the contacted area.
2. Under some reservoir conditions, the density of CO2 is close to that of
crude oil and approaches that of water. This greatly minimizes the
effects of gravity override.
3. CO2 is two to four times as viscous as methane or Nitrogen over the
usual range of pressures. This favorable viscosity; as compared with
other types of gases, will improve sweep efficiency over that of the
hydrocarbon miscible gas methods.
4. The miscible front, if it is lost, regenerates itself for CO 2 as it does with
the lean gas process.
11/21/2011
Disadvantages
1) CO2 generally is not readily available.
2) Suffers from viscous fingering
3) Gravity override could be a problem
4) Possible Early Gas Breakthrough
5) CO2 with water forms carbonic acid which is highly
corrosive. Special metal alloys and coatings for facilities
are needed.
6) Where alternate injection of CO2 and water is to be used,
dual injection systems are required – one for CO2 and the
other for water.
11/21/2011
230
12/1/2011
Estimation of MMP

Rights Reserved
Based on Numerous
Laboratory & Field Data
A. Extraction/Vaporizing Hydrocarbon
Components from the Crude Oil by CO2
occurs when ρCO2 ≈ 0.25-0.35 gm/cm3
B. Miscibility occurs when ρCO2 > 0.42 gm/cm3

Rights Reserved
231
12/1/2011
Proposed Methodology
Step 1: Using the reservoir and specific gravity of the gas; calculate the Z
Factor as a function pressure
Step 2: Plot P/Z vs.P on a Cartesian (regular) scale
Step3: Calculate P/Z that is required to produce a gas density of
0.42 gm/cm3 from:
P Ma

Z 0.42 (62.4) R T
Step 4: Enter the generated plot in step 2 with P/Z and determine the
corresponding pressure value on the x-axis; to give the MMP

Rights Reserved
232
12/1/2011
All Gas Properties are Correlated in Terms of:

1) specific gravity of the gas “ γg”:
  gas 
 g =  
  M a  0.5  0.75
  air @ SC 28.96
2) Pseudo-critical Properties; “ppc” and “Tpc”:
2
T pc = 168 + 325  g - 12.5  g
p pc = 677 + 15.0  g - 37.5  2g
3) Pseudo-reduced Properties; “ppr” and “T pr”:
p T
Ppr = & T pr =
Ppc T pc
p pc = 677 + 15.0  g - 37.5  g

2
T pc = 168 + 325  g - 12.5  g

2
233
12/1/2011
correction factor
Real Gas EOS
gas constant 10.73
pV = Z n R T
called “ number of moles” gas density
volume, ft3
m m p Ma
pV = Z RT g   , lb / ft 3
V Z RT
Ma
g
gas gradient  , psi / ft
144
234
12/1/2011
Approximation of Compressibility Factors
0.274 p 2pr 3.53 p pr

Z 1 0.8157T pr
 0.9813T pr
10 10
Class Problem:
A slim tube test on a crude oil sample with pure CO 2
indicated an MMP of 3500 psia at 200 oF. Further
assessments of the field temperature suggested that the
temperature is better represented as 150oF. Estimate the
MMP at 150 oF
235
12/1/2011
1- Extrapolate Vapor Pressure (EVP) Method:

The method suggests that the vapor pressure curve of CO2 can be extrapolated
and equated with the minimum miscibility pressure to estimate the MMP for low
temperature reservoirs (T<120°F); as given by:
 2015 
EVP 14.7 exp 10.91  
 255.372  0.5556T 
Temperature T in °F.
2- Petroleum Recovery Institute “PRI”:

The PRI proposed equating the MMP with the vapor pressure of CO2 when
the system temperature below Tc of CO2. For temperatures greater than Tc;
they proposed the following expression:
MMP = 1071.82893 10b
With the coefficient “b” as defined by:
b = [2.772 – (1519/T)]
where MMP is in psia and T in °R.
236
12/1/2011
3- Yellig and Metcalfe:

From their experimental study, the authors proposed a correlation for
predicating the CO2 MMP’s that uses the temperature “T” as the only
correlating parameter. The proposed expression is given below:
MMP = 1833.7217 + 2.2518055T + 0.01800674T2 – 103949.93/T
If the bubble point pressure of the oil is greater than the predicted MMP,
then the CO2 MMP is set equal to the bubble point pressure.
237
12/1/2011
4- Alston’s Correlation:
The author presented an empirically derived correlation for estimating the
MMP’s for pure CO2 – oil systems. Alston and co-workers used the
temperature, oil C5+ molecular weight, volatile oil fraction, and intermediate oil
fraction, as the correlating parameters. The MMP for pure CO 2 – oil systems
is given by:
MMP = 0.000878 T 1.06 [Mc5+]1.78 [Xvol/Xint]0.156
Where:
Mc5+ = molecular weight of oil pentane and heavier fractions
Xint = mole fraction of intermediate oil components (C2 – C4, CO2 and H2S)
Xvol = mole fraction of the volatile (C1 and N2) oil components
T = system temperature in °F
5- National Petroleum Council (NPC):

The NPC proposed an empirical correlation that provides rough estimates
of the pure CO2 MMP’s. The correlation uses the API gravity and the
temperature as the correlating parameters as shown below:
Gravity MMP
(°API) psi
< 27 4,000
27 to 30 3,000
> 30 1,200
Reservoir Temperature Correction
T Additional Pressure
(°F) (psi)
< 120 0
120 to 150 +200
150 to 200 +350
200 to 250 +500
238
12/1/2011
6- Croquist:
The proposed empirical equation was generated from a regression fit on
58 data points. Croquist characterizes the miscibility pressure as a
function of T, molecular weight of the oil pentanes-plus fraction, and the
mole percentage of methane and nitrogen. The correlation has the
following form:
MMP = 15.988 TA
With:
A = 0.744206 + 0.0011038 MC5+ + 0.0015279 Υc1

Where:
T = Reservoir temperature, °F
Υc1 = mole percentage of methane and nitrogen
Class problem:
by CO2 gas injection. Estimate the MMP using:
a) all available correlations
b) PVT Simulator
11/21/2011
239
12/1/2011
Nameless Field
API=40.1 & T=247 oF
Pb= 1936 psig
11/21/2011
CO2 Huff & Puff !!!

• High So
• Thick h
• Soak Intervals 2-4 Weeks
• High Injection Volume
• Maximum of 3 Cycles

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
240
12/1/2011
Foam-Assisted WAG
an Old Technology
1. Despite the favorable characteristics of CO2; it
suffers from:
Viscous fingering
gravity override
Possible Early Gas Breakthrough
2. Foam Treatment (surfactant Solution) for Mobility
Control has the Potential to Improve Gas Sweep
3. The North Sea Snorre Field is the World’s Largest
Application of Foam (F-A-WAG)

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
241
12/1/2011
Screening Criteria
EOR OAPI Viscosity SO Formation h k Depth T, Compositio

cp % Type ft md ft OF n
CO2 >22 <10 > 25 SS or NC NC >2500 NC High %

carbonat of
e C5 to C7
ASP 20- <35 >35 SS NC >50 <9000 80- Some
35 200 organic
acids
WAG Flood

Rights Reserved
242
12/1/2011
What is WAG?
The Water-Alternating-Gas “WAG” injection was originally proposed as a
method to improve sweep of gas injection, mainly by using the water to control
the mobility of the displacement and to stabilize the front.
Because the microscopic displacement of the oil by gas is normally better than
by water, the WAG injection combines the improved displacement efficiency of
the gas flooding with an improved macroscopic sweep by water injection. This
has resulted in improved recovery as compared to a pure water injection
Classification of WAG
• Traditional Miscible WAG Injection

• Traditional Immiscible WAG Injection
• Simultaneous Water and Gas injection “SWAG”
• Hybrid WAG Injection (large volume of gas is
injected followed by a number of small slugs of
water and gas)
243
12/1/2011
.
Miscible WAG Injection.
It is difficult to distinguish between miscible and immiscible WAG injections. In
many cases a multicontact gas/oil miscibility may have been obtained, but much
uncertainty remains about the actual displacement process. Miscible projects are
mostly found onshore, and the early cases used expensive solvents like propane,
which seem to be a less economically favorable process at present. Most of the
miscible projects are repressurized in order to bring the reservoir pressure above
the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) of the fluids. Because of failure to
maintain sufficient pressure, meaning loss of miscibility, real field cases may
alternate between miscible and immiscible gas during the life of the oil production.
Most miscible WAG injections have been performed on a close well spacing, but
recently miscible processes have also been attempted even at offshore type well
spacing.
Immiscible WAG Injection.

This type of WAG process has been applied with the aim of improving frontal
stability or contacting unswept zones. Applications have been in reservoirs where
gravity-stable gas injection cannot be applied because of limited gas resources or
reservoir properties like low dip or strong heterogeneity. In addition to sweep, the
microscopic displacement efficiency may be improved. Residual oil saturations are
generally lower for WAG injection than for a waterflood .Sometimes the first gas
slug dissolves to some degree into the oil. This can cause mass exchange
(swelling and stripping) and a favorable change in the fluid viscosity/density
relations at the displacement front. The displacement can then become near-
miscible.
244
12/1/2011
Miscible WAG with CO2
Hybrid WAG Injection.

When a large slug of gas is injected, followed by a number of small slugs of water
and gas, the process is referred to as hybrid WAG injection
Simultaneous Water and Gas injection “SWAG”

SWAG injection has been tested in a few reservoirs.
Water Alternating Steam Process (WASP).
Production Well
Water
Two Injectors
Gas \or Steam)
Pilot WAG- Middle East
245
12/1/2011
Factors Affecting the WAG Process

1. WAG Parameters:
 Cycling frequency, based on Length or Volume!
 Slug size
 WAG ratio
 Injection rate
2. Reservoir Heterogeneity
 Stratification (gas channeling)
 Anisotropy
3. Rock Wettability
4. Fluid Properties
5. Miscibility Conditions
6. Gas Trapped
7. Water Blocking
8. Cross Flow
9. Sor
WAG Injection Pattern
• Onshore Fields:
- 5-spot with close well spacing is widely used
- Line-Drive pattern
• Offshore Fields:
- Drilling new wells is extremely expensive and therefore fixed
injection pattern is seldom used
- Current industry trend rely on the use of horizontal WAG

injection wells placed near the bottom of the formation with
sidetracked production wells (GOM K2)
246
12/1/2011
Displacement Mechanism
1- Initial Reservoir Condition

Analogy to a set of Tanks connect by pipe.
Rock Pores Water Pore Throat
247
12/1/2011
2- Oil Migration
Swi Soi
3- Waterflooding
Swi Sw Sorw Soi
248
12/1/2011
4- Gas Displacement
Pinj > MMP
Swr Sorm Sw Sorw
Sorm.
Miscible Front
5- Waterflood
Sgr Sgt
249
12/1/2011
Permeability Hysteresis & Trapped Gas

Optimum WAG Ratio
Crossflow
Diffusion and Dispersion
WAG Flood
Gas Relative Permeability Hysteresis during
1
A-B: 1st gas cycle
B-C: 1st water cycle
F-D: 2nd gas cycle
D
B
Krg
0 A C E
0 Sgc (Sgt)C (Sgt)E 100
Gas Saturation
250
12/1/2011
Optimum WAG Ratio
Optimum WAG Ratio “WGR”

injectedwater f opt
WGR  
injectedgas 1 f opt B
1 1
f f
f opt f opt
0 0
0 1 0 A 1
Saturation Saturation
Optimum WAG Ratio in Optimum WAG Ratio in
Secondary Floods Tertiary Floods
251
12/1/2011
Injectivity Concerns
1. As shown by the drawing to
the right, it is not possible
to entirely displace an
existing fluid from the
pores. Each new fluid being
injected has less space open
for flow.
2. Asphaltene and flow
assurance
Modeling of WAG
&

Rights Reserved
252
12/1/2011
 Reservoir dimensions= ∆X=500 ft, ∆Y=500 ft

 Grid dimensions= 7x7x3
 Soi= 0.70
1. Initial Pressure =4000 psia

2. Swi=0.20
3. 45o API
4. Temperature 160 oF
5. Gas gravity=0.65
6. Sor = 0.35
7. Sgc = 0.05
8. Swc = 0.20
9. Sorm= 0.10
10. GOR=573 scf/STB
11. Model will calculate Pb
12. Pressure at 8400 ft =4000 psi
13. Pressure at 8300 ft =3980 psi
14. Minimum Pwf = 300 psi
253
12/1/2011
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3

Kx, md 500 50 200
Ky, md 500 50 200 Wells Location:
Kz, md 50 50 25 Well Type Column Row Layer
Producer: 1 7 3
ᶲ 0.30 0.30 0.30
Injector 7 1 1
h, ft 20 30 50
∆Z, ft 20 30 50
Soi 0.80 0.80 0.08
x-direction (columns) 7
1
1
y-direction (rows) 1
7
2
MMP 3200.00
Pvap 1700.00
µgas 0.020
ω 0.620
Sorm 0.10000
Water Blocking 0.000
a) minimum oil flow rate, STB/day =0

b) maximum oil flow rate, STB/day =12000 STB/day
c) Total Fluid Voidage Rate in bbl/day=0
Production Scenario:
One Production well producing for 2 years
WAG Cycle after two years
Each cycle is one year
Water injection rate is 12000 STB/day
Gas Injection Rate is 12000 Mscf/day
Total Simulation Time 5000 days
254
12/1/2011
Thermal Recovery Process

Rights Reserved
Thermal recovery Methods

Heat is applied to:
• Reduce oil viscosity

• Increase So and improve Kro
• Create distillation and thermal cracking of
the oil

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
255
12/1/2011
THERMAL RECOVERY
In general, thermal recovery techniques is
divided into three categories:
1)Cyclic steam stimulation

2)Steamflooding
3)In-situ combustion.
Cyclic steam stimulation:

The Cyclic Steam Stimulation method, also known as “Huff-and-Puff” or
“Steam Soak” and is applied to heavy-oil reservoirs to improve recovery
during the primary production phase. The process consist of three stages:
1. Injection
2. Soaking, and
3. Production
In the initial stage, steam is injected into a well at a relatively high injection
rate for approximately one month. At the end of the injection period, the well
is shut-in for a few days (approximately 5 days) to allow “steam soaking” to
heat the oil in the area immediately around the wellbore. The well is then put
on production until it reaches the economic flow rate and at this point, the
entire cycle is repeated. The steam injection and soak may be repeated four
to five times or until the response to stimulation diminishes to noneconomic
level. In general, the process can be quite effective, especially in the first few
cycles.
256
12/1/2011
Stimulating the well by the Huff-and-Puff process significantly improves oil

rate by two means:
1. Removing accumulated asphaltic and/or Paraffinic deposits around the

wellbore resulting in an improvement of the permeability around the
wellbore (i.e. favorable skin factor)
2. Radically decreases the oil viscosity which in turns improves oil mobility
and well productivity
3. Increase the thermal expansion of the oil which impacts the oil
saturation and its relative permeability.
257
12/1/2011
Estimation of the Oil Rate
 o  
cold
[ ln(r / r )  S
e w cold
] 
(q )  (q )  
o hot o cold  (  ) [ ln(rhot / r )  S ]  ( ) [ln(r / rhot )  S ] 
 o hot w hot o cold e cold 
5.615iinj
rhot 
  h  1  ( S or ) steam  S wi 
The above expression shows the increase in the well productivity is attributed to
the combine reduction in oil viscosity and skin factor.
After several applications of steam cycling process, the huff and puff application is
converted to a steam flooding project.
Steam flooding:
In steam flooding, high-temperature steam is injected into a reservoir to heat
the oil. The oil expands, becomes less viscous and partially vaporizes,
making it easier to move to the production wells. Steamflooding is generally
used in heavy oil recovery to overcome the high viscosity that inhibits
movement of the oil.
Steam flooding is a pattern drive is a process similar to waterflooding in that a

suitable well pattern is chosen and steam is injected into a number of wells
while oil is produced from adjacent wells with Most steamfloods are
traditionally developed on ±5-acre spacing. The recovery performance from
steam flooding depends highly on the selected flooding pattern, pattern size,
and reservoir characteristics. The Steam flood project typically proceeds
through four phases of development; these are:
1) Reservoir screening
2) Pilot tests
3) Fieldwide implementation; and
4) Reservoir management
258
12/1/2011
Large scale steam injection in California
259
12/1/2011
Most reservoirs that are subject to successful Huff-and-Puff operations

are considered good candidates for steam flood. The process involves
continuous injection of system to form a steam zone around the injector
that continues to advance in the reservoir with injection. In typical steam
drive projects, the injected fluid contains 80% steam and 20% water, i.e.
steam quality of 80%. The majority of the steam drive field applications
are typically conducted jointly with the Huff-and-Puff Process where the
process is conducted on producing wells, particularly when the oil is too
viscous to flow before the heat from the steam injection wells arrives.
As steam moves through the reservoir between the injector and producer, it creates
five regions each with the associated temperature and oil saturation profiles:
Ts
Temperature
Steam Solvent
Hot water Bank Cold Oil Bank Original Reservoir Tr
Zone Bank
Fluid Zone
80
So, % Steam Solvent X Soi

Zone Bank
Hot water Bank Cold Oil Bank Original Reservoir
Fluid Zone
Sor X
A B C D E
0
Distance from injection well to producing well
260
12/1/2011
Steam Zone “Region A”

As the steam enters the pay zone, it forms a steam saturated zone around with a
temperature that is nearly equal to that of the injected steam. A typical temperature
profile for the steam flood is shown by the upper curve of Figure 6-4. The profile
shows the gradual transition from the steam temperature at the injection well to the
reservoir temperature at the producing well. Due to the high temperature in Region
A, the oil saturation is reduced to its lowest saturation.This drastic reduction in the
oil saturation is attributed to the following:
1. Significant improvement in oil mobility by reducing viscosity
2. Steam distillation and vaporization of the lighter component in the crude oil. In
the steam zone, the hydrocarbon recovery by steam is greater for lighter oils
because they contain a greater fraction of steam-distillable components.
Ts
Temperature
Steam Solvent Tr
Zone Bank
Fluid Zone
A B C D E
Hot Condensate Zone “Regions B&C”

The hot condensate zone can be divided into a solvent bank”B” and hot water bank
“C.” As the steam zone moves away from the injector, its temperature drops due to
the heat loss to the surrounding formation and at some distance from the injection
well, the steam and some of the vaporized hydrocarbon vapor condense to form
the Hot Condensate Zone, i.e. Region B and C. The hot condensate zone can be
described as a mix of solvent bank (condensed hydrocarbon fluid bank) and hot
water bank. In this hot condensate zone, the solvent bank extracts additional oil
from the formation to form a miscible hydrocarbon-slug drive that is miscible with
the initial oil in place. This miscible displacement contributes significantly to the
ultimate oil recovery process by steam injection.
Ts
Temperature
Steam Solvent Tr
Zone Bank
Fluid Zone
A B C D E
261
12/1/2011
Oil Bank “Region D”

As the mobilized oil is displaced by the advancing steam and hot water
fronts, an oil bank with higher oil saturation than the initial saturation is
formed in Region D. The zone is characterized by a temperature profile
ranging from the hot condensate zone temperature to that of the initial
reservoir temperature.
Ts
Temperature
Steam Solvent Tr
Zone Bank
Fluid Zone
A B C D E
Reservoir Fluid Zone “Region E”

Region “E” essentially represents that portion of the reservoir that has
not been affected or contacted by the steam. The region contains the
reservoir fluid system that exists at the initial reservoir condition in terms
of fluid saturations and original reservoir temperature
Ts
Temperature
Steam Solvent Tr
Zone Bank
Fluid Zone
A B C D E
262
12/1/2011
Steam Recovery Mechanisms

Under stem injection, the crude oil is recovered under several combined
recovery mechanisms, all with different degree of contribution and
importance. Essentially, there are five driving mechanisms that have been
identified as the main driving forces, these are:
1) viscosity reduction and

2) thermal expansion and swelling of the oil
3) Steam distillation
4) Solution Gas drive
5) Miscible displacement
Figure 6-5 illustrates the contribution of each mechanism to the overall recovery by
steamflooding of heavy oil.
80
Oil Recovery, %
Viscosity Reduction
20
Waterflood at reservoir
Temperature
0 200 300 400
Temperature, OF
Figure 6-5. Contribution of steamflooding mechanisms to oil recovery
263
12/1/2011
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage “SAGD”

Steam assisted gravity drainage “SAGD” is based on the use steam injection,
coupled with horizontal well technology, to assist the movement of oil to a
production well by means of gravitational forces. The procedure utilizes a pair
of parallel horizontal wells, one at the bottom of the formation and the other is
placed about 10 to 30 feet above it. The wells are vertically aligned with each
other with their length in the order of 3,500 feet
Steam
Production injection
well well
Steam Chamber
Figure 6-12. Schematic illustration of the SAGD concept

264
12/1/2011
SAGD Process:
Initially, the cold heavy oil is essentially immobile. Therefore, an initial preheating stage
is necessary to create a uniform thermo-hydraulic communication between well pair. In
this start-up period, steam is injected in both wells to preheat the reservoir between the
wells. This steam circulation process in both, the injector and producer, continues, for
approximately 2-4 months to enhance the oil mobility by reducing its viscosity. Once
mobility has been established, steam is injected continuously into the upper well only.
With the continuous injection of the steam, the steam rises to the top of the formation
forming a “steam chamber” that grows vertically and horizontally. The injected steam will
reach the chamber interface, heating the surrounding cold oil sand. The condensate
and heated oil drain by gravity and flow towered the horizontal well near the base of the
reservoir in countercurrent to the rising steam. It should be noted that since the flow
path of oil and steam are separate, the displacement process is slow. However, the
fingering problem that is traditionally associated with steamflooding is essentially
eliminated and, thereby, improving the oil recovery efficiency by SAGD.
Formation Top
Heated oil
Flows to well
Heated oil
Flows to well
Steam flows into
Interface and condenses
Steam Chamber
Injection Well
Production Well
The steam chamber expansion process and associated drainage flow are
shown schematically in Figure 6-13.
Figure 6-13. Schematic illustration of the SAGD mechanism
265
12/1/2011
In-situ combustion "Fire-flood"

The in-situ combustion process is commonly used to recover heavy oil that is too
viscous to be produced by conventional means. The fireflood is generally maintained
by igniting air to create a combustion zone that moves through the formation toward
production wells. The intense heat forms zones of steam and vaporized oil that move
in advance of the combustion zone toward production wells, where the oil, water, and
gases are brought to the surface and separated.
The process is initiated by continuous injection of air into a centrally located injection
well. Ignition of the reservoir crude oil can either occur spontaneously after air has
been injected over some length of time of it requires heating. Chemical reaction
between oxygen in the injected air and the crude oil generate heat even without
combustion. Depending on the crude composition, the speed of this oxidation process
may be sufficient to develop temperatures which ignite the oil. If not, ignition can be
initiated by:
a) Downhole electric heaters

b) Preheating injection air, or
c) following air injection with oxidizable chemicals
Forms of In-Situ Combustion

There are three forms of in-situ combustion processes, these are:
1. Forward combustion
2. Reversed combustion
3. Wet combustion
266
12/1/2011
Forward Combustion
Figure 6-14. In situ combustion Process. (Courtesy Bartlesville Energy Technology Center , DOE)
Air Production well
Coke
Burned Steam &Light Hot Water Oil Bank

Region Hydrocarbons
Burning Front
Combustion
Temperature
Steam
Temperature Water
Plateau Temperature Reservoir
Temperature
Burned zone
Distance
Figure 6-15. In situ combustion Temperature Zones
267
12/1/2011
Reverse Combustion
The reserve combustion technique has been suggested for application in
reservoirs that contain extremely viscous crude oil systems. The reverse
combustion process is first started as a forward combustion process by injecting
air in a well that will be converted later to a producer. After establishing ignition
and burning out a short distance in the oil sand, the well is put on production and
air injection is switched to another adjacent well. The air injection in the adjacent
well displaces the oil toward the producing well passing through the heated zone
while the combustion front travels in the opposite direction towards the air injection
well. However, if the oil around the air injection well ignites spontaneously, the air
(i.e. oxygen supply) is stopped and the process reverts to a forward combustion
scheme.
These conditions require special, high-cost tubular to protect against high
temperatures and corrosion. More oxygen is required to propagate the front
compared to forward combustion, thus increasing the major cost of operating an
insitu combustion project.
Wet Combustion “COFCAW”

Heat utilization in the forward combustion process is very inefficient due to the fact
that air has a poor heat carrying capacity. Only about 20% of the generated heat
during the forward combustion scheme is carried forward ahead of the combustion
front where it is beneficial to oil recovery. The remaining heat is stored in the
burned zone and is eventually lost to the cap and base rock of the pay zone.
Several variations of the in-situ process have been proposed to utilize this lost heat.
Water may be injected simultaneously or alternately with air resulting in better heat
distribution and reduced air requirements. In the burned zone, injected water is
converted to superheated steam which flows through the flame and heats the
reservoir ahead. This is called COFCAW process (combination of forward
combustion and waterflood).
As the superheated system mixed with air reaches the combustion front, only the
oxygen is utilized in the burning process. Upon crossing the combustion front, the
superheated steam mixed with nitrogen from the air and flue gas consisting mainly
of CO AND CO2. This mixture of gases displaces the oil in front of the combustion
zone and condenses as soon as its temperature drops to about 400℉. The length
of the steam zone is determined by the amount of heat recovered from the burned
zone upstream.
268
12/1/2011
Equations of State
&
Compositional Modeling
537
Components Lumping
The term “lumping” or “pseudoization” then denotes the reduction in the
number of components used in equation of state calculations for reservoir fluids.
This reduction is accomplished by employing the concept of the pseudo-
component. The pseudo-component denotes a group of pure components
lumped together and represented by a single component with a Single Carbon
Number (SCN).
269
12/1/2011
There are essentially two main problems associated with “regrouping” the original
components into a smaller number without losing the predicting power of the equation
of state, these are:
How to select the groups of pure components to be represented by one pseudo-

component each.
What mixing rules should be used for determining the physical properties (e.g. pc, Tc,
M, γ and ) for the new lumped pseudo-components
Lumping Scheme
N g  Int[1  3.3 log( N  n)]

Ng= Optimum Number of Multiple-Carbon-Number groups
N = Number of carbon atoms of the last component in the hydrocarbon system
n =Number of carbon atoms of the first component in the plus fraction, i.e. n = 7 for C 7
The molecular weights “MI” separating each MCN group are calculated
from the following expression:
M N  I / Ng
M I  M C7 ( )
M C7
MN+ = Molecular weight of the last reported component in the extended analysis of the
hydrocarbon system
MC7 = Molecular weight of C7
I = 1, 2, …, Ng
270
12/1/2011
Class problem
Given the following compositional analysis of the C7+ fraction
in a condensate system, determine the appropriate number of
pseudo-components forming in the C7+.
Component zi Mi
C7 0.00347 96
C8 0.00268 107
C9 0.00207 121
C10 0.001596 134
C11 0.00123 147
C12 0.00095 161
C13 0.00073 175
C14 0.000566 190
C15 0.000437 206
C16+ 0.001671 259
Lee’s Mixing Rules:

zi
Defining: z i 
*
L
z
iL
i
L
L
zi* M i
 L   [ z i* i ]
L
M L   z i* M i  L  M L / [ ]
iL iL i iL
L L
z * M i Vci
pcL   [ z i* pci ]
L
TcL   [ z i* Tci ]

VcL  [ i
iL ML
]
iL
iL
271
12/1/2011
Class problem
Using Lee’s mixing rules, determine the physical and critical properties of the four
pseudo-components in last Example
Group I Component Mi zi zI
C7 96 0.00347
1 C8 107 0.00268 0.00822
C9 121 0.00207
C10 134 0.001596
2 C11 147 0.00123 0.002826
C12 161 0.00095
3 C13 175 0.00073 0.002246
C14 190 0.000566
C15 206 0.000437
4 C16+ 259 0.001671 0.002108
The Peng-Robinson EOS

Rights Reserved
272
12/1/2011

RT a  (T )
p 
V  b V ( V  b )  b (V  b )
R 2 Tc2 R 2 Tc2
a  0.45724  a
pc pc
R Tc R Tc
b  0.07780  b
pc pc
T 2
 (T )  [1  m(1  )]
TC
m = 0.3796 + 1.54226  - 0.2699 2
545

and Mixing Rules
RT [a  (T ) ]m
p 
V  bm V ( V  bm )  bm (V  bm )
C C
(a  ) m   x
i j
i xj ai a j  i  j (1 kij )
C
bm  x b
i
i i
Z RT
V
p
Z 3  (1  B ) Z 2  ( A  3 B 3  2 B ) Z  ( A B  B 2  B 3 )  0
(a ) m p bm p
A & B
( RT ) 2 RT
273
12/1/2011
Imagine that you can calculate OIL VOLUME

From:
PV=ZnRT
Z 3  (1  B ) Z 2  ( A  3 B 3  2 B ) Z  ( A B  B 2  B 3 )  0
Z n RT
V
p
547
Problems Associated with Equations of State
 Severely Underestimate Density and Overestimate

Volume
 Finding the Correct Z-Factor Root
274
12/1/2011
PR EOS
Z 3  (1 B ) Z 2  ( A  3 B3  2 B ) Z  ( A B  B 2  B3 )  0
overestimates the
Z-factor
pM Z RT
 V
Z RT p
1
V

Most Cubic equations of state grossly:

overestimate liquid volumes “V ”
and
underestimate Liquid densities “ρ”
1
V

Solution : Volume Translation “c”
Simply; a Volume Correction Factor
n
VLCorr  VLEOS   xi ci
i 1
n
VvCorr  VvEOS   yi ci
i 1
275
12/1/2011
Problems Associated with

Equations of State
2. Finding the Correct Z-Factor Root; through

the concept of:
“Gibbs Free Energy Function & FUGACITY”
Fugacity
The fugacity “f” may be looked upon as a
vapor pressure modified to correctly represent
the escaping tendency of the molecules from
one phase into the other, at equilibrium:
fiv  fi L 1 i  n
Assume for now that we know

how to calculate the fugacity
552
276
12/1/2011
Gas
ZV, nV & yi
f iV
Overall System
Zi, nt
T
f iL
Liquid
ZL, nL & xi
553
Gibbs Free Energy Function

g*
The normalized Gibbs energy function g* is defined in terms of the
Composition of the system and the individual component fugacity
in the system:
n
g *
gas   yi ln( f i v )
i 1
n
g *
Liquid   xi ln( f i L )
i 1
554
277
12/1/2011
Finding the Correct Z-Factor Root
Assume that a liquid phase with a composition of xi has multiple Z-factor roots; the
middle root is discarded automatically and the remaining two are designated as ZL1
and ZL2. To select the correct root; calculate the normalized Gibbs energy function
using the two remaining roots; i.e.:
n
g Z* L1   xi ln( f i L )
i 1
n
g Z* L 2   xi ln( f i L )
i 1
the correct root is chosen as the one with the lowest normalized
Gibbs energy function g*.
555
Phase Splitting and Stability

Gibbs Free Energy Function
n
Stable-single Phase g Z*  Z
i 1
i ln[ f ( Z )] 2-Phase system
P, T
P, T
g*L
g*
g*V
x Z y
Z 3-Phase system False V & L
Violate
Tangent-Plane criteria
P, T
P, T
g*
XLi XL2 yi XLi yi

556
278
12/1/2011
Fugacity
The fugacity “f” may be looked upon as a vapor pressure
modified to correctly represent the escaping tendency of
the molecules from one phase into the other, at
equilibrium:
fiv  fi L 1 i  n

fi 1  p RT 
ln(   n  dV  ln ( Z v )
v
i )  ln( ) 
yi p R T V i Vv 

fi 1  p R T 
ln(iL )  ln( )
xi p R T 
V
ni
 L
V
 dV  ln ( Z L )

iL f f y
Ki   ( i ) /( i )  i
iv
xi p yi p xi
557
Fugacity coefficient Φi , Fugacity fi

and Equilibrium Ratio Ki
fi 1  p R T 
ln(iv )  ln( 
)   dV  ln ( Z v )
yi p R T V  ni V v 
f 1  p R T 
ln(iL )  ln( i )     dV  ln ( Z L )
xi p R T V  ni V L 
iL
Ki  v
i
279
12/1/2011
Flash Calculations
Given: Solve for:

Ki and Zi nV, nL, xi, and yi
zi ( K i  1)
 n (K
P
f (nv )  0
i v i  1)  1
Gas
nV & yi
nL = 1 - nv
zi
Given T
Zi, Ki
xi 
n L  nv K i Liquid
zi K i n L & xi
yi   xi K i
nL  nv K i
559
Flow diagram of the K-Value determination by EOS

Given:
zi, P, T
pci T
Assume KAi
Ki  exp[5.37(1  i )(1  ci )]
K  Ki
A p T
i
yi , nV Xi , nL
Perform flash
calculations
ZV , ΦVi Calculate Ki ZL , ΦLi
  0.0001 n
 Ki 
Test for
convergence   K
i 1 
 1  
A
No, set K  Ki
i
A
i 
where   0.0001
  0.0001 Yes
Solution; gives:
Ki, xi, yi, nL, nV, ZL, ZV
560
280
12/1/2011
From K-Value Flow Diagram
P&T
Gas
Z V nV R T
V
ZV, nV & yi V 
p
Overall System
Zi, nt
Liquid Z L nL R T
L
V 
ZL, nL & xi p
561
The fluid phases; i.e. liquid and gas, can be described within the framework of the
equation of state (EOS) while the precipitated pure solid phase is described by an
additional equation that is derived from the Flory-Huggins solubility model.
Let “s” represents the solid phase in equilibrium with the two fluid hydrocarbon
phases, liquid “L” and vapor “v”. The thermodynamic basis for phase equilibrium
conditions states that the fugacity “fi” for each component i in entire system is the
same in all phases. In a mixture of “n” components, let the asphaltene component
be the n–th component. When the vapor, liquid, and solid phases coexist at
equilibrium, the following thermodynamic equilibrium conditions must be satisfied.
f iV  f i L
f nV  f nL  f ns
281
12/1/2011
Vapor “yi” i=1,2,…, nA+ Kis  0, i  1,.., n A

ynB+ = 0 snB 1
  
s
K nB
xnB xnB
Liquid “xi” i=1,2,…, nA+, nB+
Kis  0, i  1,.., n A
snB 1
 
i= nB+ s
Solid “si” K nB
xnB xnB
nt = n v + n L + n S
563
Three Phase Flash Calculations

The component and phase material balance constraints state that for one mole
of feed ; i.e. nt=1, with composition zi; can be distributed into three phases:
Vapor phase with composition yi and nv moles

Liquid phase with composition xi and nL moles
Solid phase with composition si and ns moles
The material balance can then be written as:
ni  nv  ns 1
ni xi  nv yi  ns si  zi
 xi   yi   si   zi 1.0
Combining the above relationships and introducing the equilibrium ratio; give
282
12/1/2011
n
 z ( K i 1) 
f (nv , ns )    n (K 1)  (K
i i v i
s  0
i 1) 1
n
zi ( K is 1) 
g (nv , ns )    s  0
i 1  nv ( K i 1)  ns ( K i 1) 
These two relationships can be solved tentatively for the number of moles
of the vapor phase nv and solid phase ns. The phase composition can
then be determined from:
zi
xi 
1 nv ( K i 1)  ns ( K is 1)
yi  xi K i
s
snB  xnB K nB
TUNING OF
EQUATION OF STATE

Reserved.
283
12/1/2011
Why do we TUNE EOS ?

Why EOS in NOT predictive ?
• The Plus Fraction C+
• Methane C1
• Mixing Rules
First Problem !
a, b, and α(T) of the Plus Fraction!
T
 (T )  [1  m (1  ) ]2
R 2 Tc2 R Tc  TC 
aC    a bC   b
pc  pc 
m  0.3796  1.54226 C   0.2699 C2 
TC , pC , and ω of the C+ ! ?
• Ωa+ and Ωb+ same as for pure components ! ?
284
12/1/2011
R 2 Tc2 R Tc 
aC    a bC   b
pc  pc 
Methane; is another problem
Problems when
T>Tc
TC = -116 OF
T >>> -116 oF
285
12/1/2011
The Traditional Methodology of

Tuning EOS
• Extending the C7+ to C45+ or more
• Lumping into 3-5 pseudo fractions, e.g. F1, F2,…, F5
• Adjusting ( pC & TC )C1 & C+ Fractions ; or
• Adjusting (Ωa & Ωb) C1 & C+ Fractions
• Binary interaction coefficient kC1 – C+
• Adjusting volume correction parameters “ci”
Adjusting  a &  b to *a & *b ; means :
 *  b 
TC*   *a  TC
 b  a 
  b2 *a 
p  
*
C  pC
 ( b )  a 
* 2
Risky approach
286
12/1/2011
DO NOT:
• Adjust Critical Volume “Vc”,
• Adjust Acentric factor w, very risky
• Regress on CCE (very misleading
approach)
574
287
12/1/2011
STEP 1
# Original kij Ωa Ωb c
Component
1 N2
 *  b  2 CO2
TC*   *a  TC
 b  a  3 C1 x x x x
4 C2
  b2 *a 
pC*    pC 5 C3
 ( b )  a 
* 2
6 i-C4
7 n-C4
8 i-C5
Most important components;
9 n-C5
WHY?
10 C6
1. Undefined
11 F1 x x x x
2. System is Characterized
12 F2 x x x x
by these Fractions
13 F3 x x x x
575
STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4

# Component kij Ωa Ωb c # Component kij Ωa Ωb c # Component kij Ωa Ωb c
1 N2+C1 x x x 1 N2+C1 x 1 N2+C1 x
2 CO2+C2 x x 2 CO2+C2 2 CO2+C2
3 C3 3 C3 3 C3+ i-C4 n-C4 x x
4 i-C4 4 i-C4 n-C4 x x 4 i-C5 n-C5+ C6 x x
5 n-C4 5 i-C5 n-C5 x x 5 F1 x
6 i-C5 6 C6 6 F2 x
7 n-C5 7 F1 x 7 F3 x
8 C6 8 F2 x
9 F1 x 9 F3 x
10 F2 x
11 F3 x
576
288
12/1/2011
The Nameless Gas Field

Project #1
• Rock and fluid properties:
Porosity=0.12
Reservoir dimensions: ∆X=300 ft, ∆Y=300 ft, ∆Z=20 ft
 Thickness= 20 ft
Grid dimensions= 50 x 50 x 1
Kx=0.8 md, Ky=10.0 md, Kz = 0.8md
T = 120 deg F
Gas Gravity = 0.65
Critical gas saturation=0.02
Critical water saturation=0.25
Initial water saturation=0.25
Pressure @5020 ft (bottom of the formation) = 3500
Total Simulation time: 7200 days
Objectives:
maximize gas recovery
Stimulate wells © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
Reservoir Simulation

11/21/2011
Rights Reserved
289
12/1/2011
The Nameless Gas Field

x-direction (columns)
1 14 35 50
1
16
Rows
32
50
Project #2: SPE Comparative Study

Odeh’s Gas Injection Project

11/27/2011
Rights Reserved
290
12/1/2011
291
12/1/2011
Project #3: SPE Comparative Study

Horizontal Well Simulation

11/27/2011
Rights Reserved
292
12/1/2011
293
12/1/2011
294
12/1/2011
295
12/1/2011
Team project
Big Texas Oil Field
 Total area= 1290 acres
 Reservoir dimensions= ∆X=300 ft, ∆Y=300 ft, ∆Z=20 ft
 Maximum # of wells= 8 wells
 Grid dimensions= 25 x 25 x 5
 Soi= 0.70
• Initial Pressure =4500 psia

• 35o API
• Temperature 150 oF
• Gas gravity=0.65
• Sor = 0.35
• Sgc = 0.02
• Swc = 0.30
• Sorm= 0.05
• GOR=500 scf/STB
• Model will calculate Pb
• Minimum Pwf = 300 psi
296
12/1/2011
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5

Kx, md 60 50 30 20 10
Ky, md 60 50 30 20 10
Kz, md 6 5 3.0 2 01
ᶲ 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10
h, ft 20 20 20 20 20
∆Z, ft 20 20 20 20 20
1 x-direction (columns) 2
1 0 1
y-direction (rows)
20
Objectives:
• Maximize Oil Recovery
• Compare Water Injection with Gas Injection
• Drill Horizontal injectors /producers and:
test completion in Layer 1,2,3,4, and 5
Effect of horizontal well orientation
document the difference in RF
• Stimulate Wells
• Miscible Displacement
• Document your Team Results Graphically
• Team Presentation
297
12/1/2011
Suggestions & Comments

• Always start with a BASE run; i.e. only producers;
compare the subsequent field development runs
with the base
• On layers completion: notice that shutting off
layers does not stop flow across layers
298

Eor Ior Course T Ahmed PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Eor Ior Course T Ahmed PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/1/2011

Professor Emeritus of Petroleum Engineering

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All

11/21/2011 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Segmented Stages of Oil Recovery

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All

Primary Oil Recovery:

Secondary Oil Recovery:

Tertiary (Enhanced) Oil Recovery:

Segmented Stages of Oil Recovery

Natural Flow Artificial Lift

Water Flood Gas Injection

Thermal Miscible Flood Chemical

• Steam • CO2 • Micellar-Polymer

11/21/2011 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

EOR Assessment & Approach

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

1- What is the remaining oil saturation after H2O, i.e. Sorw ?

1- What is the design of the chemical slug to reduce σ? Sorm ?!!!

1- What is the polymer concentration necessary to provide mobility the control?

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Light Oils Heavy Oils

Target for different crude oil systems

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Residual Oil !!!!

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All

Initial Reservoir Condition at Equilibrium

11/21/2011 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Initial Reservoir Condition at Equilibrium

11/21/2011 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Displacement in Multiple Channels

Gas displaces oil from

Capillary forces cause water to

Thread of the oil gets smaller at restricted points

11/21/2011 © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Target Setting for Recovery Factors

2) How realistic is Setting a Target for RF > 70%? Can we do Better ?

3) The Key: a More Proactive Longer-Term minded Reservoir

Timing to Start Injection!

For any IOR process, important issues to consider

A. Movable Oil or Residual Oil

Primary Secondary Tertiary

Time ? © 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

First Step for

Performing a Screening Test

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All

Process Crude Oil Reservoir

High Pressure Gas >23° API So: >30%

Miscible CO2 >22° API So: >20%

Chemical (ASP; >20° API So: >35%

Questions and Issues

2. What factors control or limit recovery?

3. How can we improve recovery?

4. Plans after Secondary? EOR? Timing?

5. Sorm ? (Sor)res = f [ (Sor)core , M, V ] ?

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All

What is the Original-Oil-in-Place? What Tools are Used?

OOIP from Volumetric & MBE calculations !!!!!!!

© 2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All

1- Material Balance Equation

GP Volume of Gas Cap