↓↓
SPE 50645
Water-Alternating-Gas Flooding in Venezuela: Selection of Candidates Based on
Screening Criteria of International Field Experiences
Manrique E., Calderon G., SPE, Mayo L. And Stirpe M. T., SPE, PDVSA INTEVEP
Copyright 190a, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation a! the J 998 SPE European Petroleum
Conference held ej The Hague, The Netherlands, 2D-22 October 189B.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following
review of infomation contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of tho
paper, as presented, have not boen reviewed by tho Society of Petroleum Engineers
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication reviow by
Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineer. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any paA of this paper for commercial purposes without the
written consent of lhe Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print Is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations
may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where
and by whom the papor was presented. Writo Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-852-043S.
Abstract
Water alternating gas (WAG) injection schemes have
become an important strategy for improved oil recovery (IOR)
technique around the world, and have been the focus of
interest in recent years in Venezuela. This drainage strategy
is mainly planned according to the major concerns in Western
Venezuela oil fields: optimizing gas resources and improving
oil recoveries in the region.
As part of the support to identify those reservoirs that
will be candidates to WAG flooding in this area of the
country, an extensive review was carried out to describe the
main reservoir management strategies implemented in
WAG pilot, as well as large field projects in order to
evaluate international field experiences, before expensive
reservoir description, laboratory studies, economic
evaluations and WAG pilot projects are carried out.
This paper briefly describes part of this review and also
shows some screening criteria for WAG floodings. Data
from successfull and unsueeessfull worldwide projects have
been analyzed obtaining relevant information about crude
oil and reservoir properties as well as gas injection
capacities, incremental oil recoveries, among others. All
these data have been compiled and the results are presented
graphically; the relationship between them is discussed and
compared with data of some of the reservoirs proposed for
WAG floods in Venezuela.
It has been found that WAG projects must be initiated with
1
Society of Petroleum Engineers
injection pressures 249c greater than reservoir pressures
unless the formation is deeper than 8000 ft. Additionally,
incremental oil recoveries reported by those projects are
higher for lower viscosity ratios and do not depends on
injected solvent slug sizes. Finally, the authors discuss how
this screening was useful as a first look to identify the actual
reservoir and facilities of different fields located at the
Maracaibo Lake (e.g. B-6-X.10 and VLE-305) and select them
for closer investigation and planning WAG pilot projects or
“WAG Field Laboratories”.
Introduction
Water alternating gas injection (WAG) is known as a
method to control the gas fingering and improve vertical
sweep efficiency. This recovery process has been applied
successfully on several oil fields, specially in USA, Canada
and more recently in Norway. Generally, field projects are
based mainly on carbon dioxide or hydrocarbon gases injected
at miscible conditions. However, some field experiences (e.g.
Lick Creek, Kuparuk River, Brage and Gullfaks) have shown
that WAG could be an efficient method for improving oil
recovery at immiscible conditions with CO and hydrocarbon
gases [1-2].
WAG processes are commonly applied in gas floods to
reduce the mobility, to improve the stability of the flood
front, and subsequently to improve oi1 recovery. WAG has
also been considered beneficial to IOR in reducing viscous
fingering between the displacing gas and the oil phase and
by reducing override effects caused by domination of
viscous forces over gravity forces in highly heterogeneous
reservoirs, as well as improved attic oil recovery in
structurally complex reservoirs [1-4].
The use of WAG injection has become an important
strategy in the operation and economic maintenance of gas
flooded fields, satisfying gas market demands, reducing
gas handling and improving oil recoveries. However,
significant variations in the results could be obtained in
WAG projects due to differences in reservoir geology and
heterogeneity, gas handling, operational flexibility and
surveillance of projects, among others. Thus, the present
paper briefly describes the
2 Manrique E., Calderdn G., Mayo L. And Stirpe M. SPE 5064B
T.

most relevant considerations reported on several WAG

field projects and some of the screening criteria obtained An important method for monitoring WAG processes is
from those WAG floods, as well as how this information is
used to evaluate planned WAG projects in Venezuelan oil
reservoirs.

Planning WAG Projects

Generally, WAG large field applications are developed

between 3 and 5 years after pilot projects have been
initiated. In some cases, field pilot or expansion projects
may be depend on economic issues (e.g. oil prices), gas
availability and if gas compression and recycling facilities
are present or they are easy to install. Figure 1 shows the
main steps of WAG projects since early stages of
experimental and simulation studies to large field
applications. The information presented in figure 1 was
obtained from the review of 28 field projects from a total of
59 WAG applications reported in the literature [1].

Experimental and simulation studies

Prior to initiating WAG pilot projects, considerable

theoretical and laboratory investigation efforts had been
expended. Generally, a physical model study of the WAG
processes had been conducted as well as slims tube tests at
reservoir conditions. Computer simulations of various
operational schemes and alternate well patterns were also
conducted. Based on the knowledge accumulated from
these efforts, commonly the decisions are taken to field test
the WAG process at pilot scale (e.g. Brage, Kuparuk River,
Means San Andres, Prudhoe Bay, and Slaughter). However,
operators may argued that pilot projects could delay field
expansions and affect IOR potential (e.g. Jay Little
Escambia) [1,5-10].

Regarding the numerical simulation studies, efficiencies

and production mechanisms of WAG processes are
evaluated using both two-dimensional (2D) cross sectional
models, and 3D sector models. Two approaches have been
widely used to study the process: black-oil and
compositional simulations. However, streamtubes and tank
models have been also considered (e.g. Mitsue Gillwood,
Rangely Weber). Full field WAG performance predictions
are fundamentally obtained from scale-up tools, since 3D
simulations would be too CPU intensive. Thus, WAG
predictions generally are based on refined elements from a
history matched full field model [1].

Pilot p surveillance

It is widely accepted that comprehensive data

acquisition programs are necessary for WAG management
and pilot project interpretations. Common data acquisition
methods used to monitoring WAG processes are by
frequent separator testing, fluid composition analysis,
production/injection rates, pressures, injection surveys,
measuring gas-oil ratios (GOR) and saturation logging.
2
the use of chemical and/or radioactive tracers in both
phases. Generally, the strategy used is the injection of
different tracers or a combination of them in selected wells
of the pilot area (e.g. Brage, Gullfaks, Means San Andres,
Mitsue Gillwood and Snorre). The aim to inject gas and
water tracers into injection wells is related to use
breakthrough time, and tracer production/injection history
in order to give a better understanding of the dynamic
reservoir behavior and to support and upgrade reservoir
models [1,11,12].

In most of the cases, all WAG injections began with

pilot projects (e.g. Brage, Gullfaks, East Vacuum,
Kuparuk River, and Little Creek). Based on the results
obtained,, field expansions have been implemented. It is
important to mention that few field projects (e.g. Caroline
and Neches) have been reported as unsuccessful due to
poor conformance or operational problem [2].

Optimization of large WAG field applications

Poor sweep efficiency and early gas breakthrough are

the major concerns in processes involving WAG flooding.
In that sense, several methods have been considered to
improve the gas sweeps efficiency and thereby enhances
the recovery of oil from the fields. Some of the reported
field applications may include [1,2,11,13-18]:

• Effective and economic use of gas considering pattern

efficiency studies or WAG ratios per pattern. (e.g. East
Vaccum, Slaughter - Mallet Unit, Prudhoe Bay,
Rangely Weber).
• WAG tapering or progressive reduction of gas
injection after gas breakthroughs (e.g. Slaughter, Kelly
Snyder, Dollarhide, Rangely Weber).
• Reduction of gas production to improve the area sweep
efficiency by conversions or realignment of selected
patterns of the field (East Vaccum, Kelly Snyder).
• Implementation of down-dip and up-dip WAG
injection schemes (e.g. Snorre, Lower Statfjord -
Statfjord Field).
• Infill drilling strategies (Dollarhide, Jay Little
Escambia, Kelly Snyder, Means San Andres, Mitsue
Gillwood and Wasson Denver).
• Selective interval fracture stimulations on wells in
which large contrast in permeability between
reservoirs has been found (e.g. East Vaccum).
• GOR control methods based on foams, gels and/or
polymer treatments (e.g. Rangely Weber and Snorre).
• Plugging or isolation of thief zones using foamed
cements (e.g. Kelly Snyder) or special packing of
wells, respectively (e.g. Means San Andres and Mitsue
Gillwood).

WAG Screening

Screening criteria have been reported for almost all

improved oil recovery methods. Those screening criteria have

3
SPE 50645 Water-Alternating-Gas Flooding in Venezuela: Selection of Candidates Based on Screening Criteria of international Field Experiences
been obtained defining ranges for some critical parameters
of successful IOR projects around the world. Additionally,
the proposed screening criteria are based on field results
and oil recovery mechanisms [19-21]. Regarding the
miscible and immiscible gas floodings (CO , No and
hydrocarbon gases), several screening criteria have been
described in the literature [20-22]. However, few studies
has been aimed to describe WAG field experiences and
propose some screening criteria based on field results,
reservoir and crude oil characteristics.
Main oil properties and reservoir characteristics for
successful international WAG field experiences are given in
Table 1. The table was compiled from 56 WAG field
projects reported previously [1,2]. Figures 2 through 6
show scatterplots of the suggested technical criteria based
on data available in the literature. Unfortunately, not all the
field project has been described completely. In that sense,
the number of projects might limit the proposed screening
criteria for WAG floods reported in each variable.
Additionally, in order to have a reference about the criterias
presented relevant and successful projects (1: Jay LEC; 2:
Prudhoe Bay; 3: Kuparuk River; 4: Rangely Weber; 5:
Slaugther Estate) has been identified on each of the
correlations.
Regarding the suggested screening criteria for WAG
floods, those are slightly more specific than the reported
previously in the literature for miscible and immiscible gas
injection projects [20,21]. As shown in figure 2, more than
509c of oil viscosities of WAG field projects are below 2
cP no matter the type of the injected solvent. This result is
quite lower than from those reported for COC flooding (<
10 cP) [20,21]. It seems that viscosity ratios for WAG
projects are between 10 and 30, this interval looks narrower
for projects based on CO However, the reduced number of
projects (19 of 56) might limit these results (Fig. 3).
Looking at the recovery method before the WAG
projects have been implemented [1,23], most of the fields
were producing by waterflooding (Fig. 4). This trend aloud
us to propose that reservoirs producing by water injection
are recommended or good candidates for WAG flooding.
However, WAG projects also could be initiated in resevoirs
producing by primary recovery and producing by gas
injection.
As it has been reported previously for miscible and
immiscible gasfloods [20,21], reservoir permeabilities are
not critical parameters for that type of recovery processes.
Permeabilities of some of the reviewed WAG projects
present high permeability contrasts (e.g. Wilmington,
Prudhoe Bay and Snorre) varying from 50 milidarcy (mD)
up to 3 Darcies. However, figure 5 shows that a high
number of successful WAG fields projects has been
implemented in reservoirs with permeabilities below 100
mD, as well as net thickness below 100 ft based on the
reported incremental oil recoveries by those projects.
Successful WAG field projects in formations
163
3
with net thickness greater than 100 ft (e.g. Rangely Weber)
generally present high dip angles.
Finally, depths and temperatures of WAG field
experiences are not critical parameters for screening purposes.
However, it is important to mention that minimum
miscibility pressures (MMP) requirements increase with
temperature for miscible gas or WAG floods. The range of
temperature of the WAG projects evaluated (26 of 56) is
mostly between 100 and 200 °F and reservoir depths are
greater than 4000 ft (Fig. 6).
Oil recovery and operational issues
To predict the performance of WAG field experiences,
all projects which reported incremental of oil recoveries
have been correlated with some fluid and reservoir
properties, total volume of solvent and solvent slug size
injected, respectively. The results are presented graphically
(Figures 7 through 10); the relationship between them is
discussed and compared with data of some of the reservoirs
proposed for WAG floods in Venezuela.
In order to correlate the incremental oil recoveries that
could be obtained by a WAG flood, this variable was
plotted against some of the operational issues or screening
criteria identified in previous WAG field experiences. One
of the most important variables in the economy of WAG
floods is the total amount of injected solvent. Figure 7
shows that higher incremental oil recoveries (% OOIP) has
been reported in projects injecting an amount of solvent
between 30 to 40 % of the hydrocarbon pore volume (to
HCPV) using slug sizes lower than 10 '7r and 5% of HCPV
for miscible and immiscible WAG processes, respectively
(Fig. 8). However this value can vary depending on the
reservoir properties, volume of gas available, gas and oil
prices and the total economy of the process, among others.
Regarding the relationship between the incremental oil
recoveries obtained by WAG injections with the viscosity ratio
(Fig. 9), only few projects (12 of 56) reports both data.
Therefore, in this case it is difficult to draw a useful
correlation to recommend a specific viscosity ratio for a
WAG project. Conversely, figure 10 shows that higher
incremental oil recoveries by WAG projects can be
obtained in formations with net thickness lower than 100 ft
unless reservoirs with important dip angles such as Rangely
Weber [1,2].
fiome of the project characteristics and operational
issues for the international WAG field experiences
reviewed are given in Table 2. Regarding the operational
issues evaluated for 20 of the total of WAG projects (56),
we plot the reservoir pressures against injection pressures,
as shown in figure II, obtaining a good linear correlation
for both miscible and immiscible WAG floods. From this
plot, it seems that immiscible projects need at least an
injection pressure over the
40 la of the reservoir pressures, and the requirements for
miscible WAG floods over 209. Tubing and casing
materials,

163
4 Manrique E., Calderdn G., Mayo L. And Stirpe SPE 50648
M. T.
c
o p
r r
r o
o d
s u
i c
o e
n r
s
t h
r a
e v
a e
t b
m e
e e
n n
t
s d
, e
a t
s a
w i
e l
l e
l d
a
s d
w e
e s
l c
l r
c i
o b
m e
p d
l
e i
t n
i
o p
n r
s e
f v
o i
r o
i u
n s
j s
e t
c u
t d
o i
r e
s s
a [
n 2
d 4
]. Finally, Table 3 shows the 2. Christensen, J.R., Stenby, E.H., S. P
comparison of the proposed screening Skauge, A, “Review of WAG Field C r
criteria for 3 of the reservoirs candidates Experience”. Paper SPE 39883, o
h
to implement WAG projects in presented at the 1998 SPE j
a
Venezuela. Actually, those reservoirs International Petroleum Conference e
and Exhibition of Mexico, m
are under experimental, reservoir c
Villahermose, March 3-5. p
characterization and preliminary t
3. Tollefsen, Svein, “Offshore WAG“s i
numerical simulation studies as shown
- Multipurpose Enhanced Oil o
in figure 1. i
Recovery for the Future”. JPT, n
, n
Conclusions March 1996.
4. Caudle, B.H., Dyes A.B.,
J t
It is important to mention that a “Improving Miscible Displacement
. h
screening guide such as the obtained by Gas-Water Injection”. Trans
e
can encourage an engineer when a given AIME, 213, 281, 1985. H
reservoir and crude oil meet the stated .
K
criteria. However, it reservoirs and ,
u
crude oils which do not meet those
p
screening criteria it does not necessarily S a
mean that the process cannot be h r
successfully carried out. Conversely, if e u
a given reservoir meet the criteria, it is l k
not necessarily true that a WAG flood d
would be successful, even though it e
might be technically feasible. R
n i
Finally, the suggested screening v
J e
criteria are useful for surveys of an
important number of fields candidate to . r
WAG floods in Venezuela without B
economic evaluation or time consuming . U
reservoir description and simulation , n
studies. Additionally, the authors i
believe that this type of analysis might “ t
contribute to the planning and A ”
development of future WAG injection n ,
projects in Venezuela, based on
previous field experiences. I P
m a
Acknowledgments m p
e
i
The authors wish to thank PDVSA r
s
E & P and PDVSA INTEVEP for c
permission to publish this paper. S
i
Critical review by Gustavo Gedler, P
b E
PDVSA INTEVEP, is gratefully
l
acknowledged.
e 2
The authors also wish to thank Arne 8
Skauge, Norsk Hydro ASA, and all the W 6
authors of paper SPE 39883 for share A 0
the information of their Review of G 2
WAG Field Experiences. ,
I
References n p
j r
e e
1. Manrique, Eduardo, “Main c s
Reservoir Management Strategies t e
for WAG Projects, a Field Cases i n
Review. Vision Tecnologica Vol. 5 o t
N°1, Intevep, S.A., Los n e
Teques,1997 d
 at the 69* Annual Technical
Conferences and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 1994.
6. Reinbold, E.W., Enger, S.R., Ma,
T.D., Renke, S.M, “Early
Performance and Evaluation of the
Kuparuk River Hydrocarbon
Miscible Flood”, Paper SPE
24930, presented at the 67“
Annual Technical Conferences
and Exhibition, Washington, D.C.,
1992.
7. Christian, L.D., Nelson, W.C.,
Metz, B.E., Rupp, K.A., Styler,
J.W., Zimmerman, K.A. “Design
and Implementation of a Miscible
Water-Alternating-Gas Flood at
Prudhoe Bay.” Paper SPE 13272,
presented at the 1984 SPE Annual
Technical Conferences and
Exhibition, Houston, Sept 16-19.
8. Williamson, A.S., Gondouin, M.,
Pavias, E.J., Olson, J.E., Chnell,
L.W., Bowen, R.R., “The
Planning of a Large- Scale
Miscible Flood at Prudhoe Bay”,
JPT October 1986.
9. Christian, L.D., Shirer, J.A.,
Kimbel, E.L., Blackwell, R.J.,
“Planning a Tertiary Oil-Recovery
Project for Jay/LEC Fields Unit”,
JPT August 1981
10. Langston, E.P., Shirer, J.A.,
“Performance of Jay/LEC Fields
Unit under Mature Waterflood and
Early Tertiary Operations”. Paper
SPE 11986, presented at the 1984
SPE Annual Technical
Conferences and Exhibition, San
Francisco, Oct 5-8.
11. Omoregie, Z.S., Jackson , G.R.
“Early Performance of a large
Hydrocarbon Miscible Flood at the
Mitsue Field, Alberta”. Paper SPE
16718, presented at the 1987 SPE
Annual Technical Conferences and
Exhibition, Dallas, Sept 27-30.
12. Stenmark, H., Andfossen, P.O.
“Snorre WAG pilot- a case study”,
8'h European IOR, Vienna,.
Austria, 1996.
13. Harpoon, K.J., Whaleback, L.D.,
“East Vacuum Grayburg San
Andres Unit (EVGSAU) C Flood
Ten-Year Performance Review:
Evolution of a Reservoir
Management Strategy and Results
of WAG Optimization.” Paper SPE
36710, presented at the 1996 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Oct 6-9.
14. Sharma, A.K., Clements, L.E.
“From Simulator To Field
Management: Optimum WAG
Application in a West Texas CO,
flood- a Case History.” Paper SPE
36711, presented at the 1996 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Oct 6-9.
15. Colllings, R.C., Hild, G.P., Abidi,
H.R., “Pattern Modification by
Injection-Well Shut-ln: A
Combined Cost Reduction and
Sweep-Improvement Effort” Paper
SPE 30730, presented at the 1995
SPE Annual Technical
Conferences and Exhibition,
Dallas, Oct 22-25.
16. Wackowski, R.K., “Results of the
Injection Well Polymer Gel
Treatment Program at the Rangely
Weber Sand Unit”. Paper SPE
39612, presented at the 1998 SPE
Syposium on Improved Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, April 19-22.
1
6
4
SPE 50645 Water-Alternating-Gas Flooding in Venezuela: Selection of Candidates Based on Screening Criteria of International Field Experiences 5

17. Friedmann, Johnson, D., Hild, G.P., Hughes, T.L.,

Wilson, A., Davies, S.N., “Large Volume Foam Gel
Treatments to Improve Conformance of the Rangely
CO Flood.” Paper SPE 39649, presented at the 1998
SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
April 19- 22.
18. Stenmark, H., Snadvik, A. “Snorre Up-Dip WAG
Injection.” 6“ Conference on Reservoir Management;
Stavanger, Norway, November 1996.
19. Bu, T., Soreide, I., Kydland., “IOR Screening: What
Went Wrong?”., 7° European IOR Symposium,
Moscow, Russia, October 1993.
20. Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., Seright., R.S., “EOR
Screening Criteria Revisted- Part 1: Introduction To
Screening Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field
Projects”. Paper SPE 35385, presented at the 1996 SPE
Syposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April. 21-
24.
21. Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., Seright., R.S., “EOR
Screening Criteria Revisted- Part 2: Applications and
of Oil Prices”. Paper SPE 39234, presented at the 1996
SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
April. 21-24.
22. Rob1, F.W., Emanuel, A.S., Van Meter, O.E. Jr. “The
1984 National Petroleum Council Estimate of Potential of
EOR for Miscible Processes”, JPT August 1986
23. Moritis, G., “New Technology, Improved Economics
Boost EOR Hopes (EOR Survey and Analysis)”. Oil
and Gas Journal — OGJ Special, 39-51, April 1996.
24. Mayo, L., Manrique, E. Well Completions and Surface
Facilities Used in International WAG Projects (In
Spanish). PDVSA INTEVEP Internal Report (SIT-
00166,98). April 1998.

De proyectos piloto a expansiones de campo: planificación, vigilancia, evaluación y

gestión de proyectos internacionales de WAG
165
6 Manrique E., Calderon G., Mayo L. And Stirpe M. SPE 50646
T.

T
A
B
L
E
1.
S
u
g
g
e
st
e
d
C
ri
te
ri
a
f
o
r
W
at
er
A
lt
er
n
at
in
g
G
a
s
„
P
r
oj
e
ct
s.
F
l
u
i
d

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
166
e (mD) <
s Type of1
: formation0
O < a 0
i 2 of u
l (3 projects
n
evaluated
1/ Total le
v 5 (32/56)a WAG s
i 6) projects. s
s ' d
c 3 i
o 0 p
s — p
i 4 i
t 5 n
y (3 g
1/ (
( 5 3
c 6) 0
P ‘ /
) 1 5
0 6
G — )’
r <
3
a 1
v 0
(1 0
i 0
t 9/
5 (
y 3
6)
‘ 0
( /
° 5
A Waterfloo
6
P ding )'
I preferred N
) N o
o t
V t
i c
c
s r
r
c it
i
o i
t
s i
c
i c a
t a l
y l
N
r T
o
a A
t
t B
c
i L
o r
i E
Reservoir
characteristics / t
i 2
properties: .
Previous c
a M
production a
method l
i
Temperature
n
(°F)
Depth (ft) P
Net thickness (ft) Average permeability r
o
166
ject Characteristics and Operational Issues of International 30 proce
WAG Floods. (20/56)’: ñ 1
P (4/56
r
Misc
o process: e
j proce
e 22 (1
(20/56
c Immisci 6)a
t Immi
ble
process:
proce
c 42
h (4/56
a J-55
VariableN-8
r
a (i4/56
commonN-80
c (14/5
t Miscible ‘
e process:Com
r ercia
i inhib
s Immisci ors
t (14/5
i ‘
c
s
: T
Total ial A
solvent Anticorrosion treatment B
injected (% L
HCPV) E
Solvent 3.
slug size (% M
HCVP) ai
n
WAG ratio
Pr
Incremental recovery
(% OOIP) oj
ec
Operational issues: t
Injection pressure / C
Reservoir pressure ha
{%) ra
ct
T eri
u sti
bi cs
n an
g d
m
at O
er pe
ia rat
l io
C na
a l
si Is
n su
g es
m of
at
er V
166
 enezuelan Planned WAG Projects
B-6-X.10 VLE-305 El Furrial
Fluid properties:
Oil viscosity (cP) 2.4 0.605 . 0.415
Gravity (°API) 24 3
5
Viscosity ratio 70 (gas HC)"’ 3
0
Reservoir characteristics /
properties:
Previous production method Waterfloding Waterfloding Waterfloding
Temperature (°F) 180 2
3
6
Depth (ft) 5500 12500 14500
Net thickness (ft) 150 (Dip angle 1 290 (dip angle
3°) 0 13°)
0
Average permeability (mD) 200 4
9
0
Type of formation Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone
Project Characteristics:
Total solvent injected (% HCPV) 30 4
0
Solvent slug size (% HCVP) 6 5
WAG ratio 1:1 1:
1
Incremental recovery (% OOIP)' 2’ 9 (gas HC) 1
2
Injected solvent HC/COz H
C
(1) Solvent to be injected has not been decided.
(2) Values obtained by preliminar numerical simulations.

166
 SPE 50645 Water-Alternating-Gas Flooding in Venezuela: Selection of Candidates Based on Screening Criteria of International Field Experiences 7

Embalses por primario

o secundaria
(Gas o agua) producción

Estrategias de manejo de reservorios

basadas en información histórica de campo
apoyadas con estudios experimentales y de
simulación.

↓VLE-305
Field El 2-3
Pi lay ffec . Ja Furrial Field
de d a (e.g
lo fie t I y años
an

t p ld O L B-6-X.10 Field
ro e R EC
je xp po )
ct a teProyectos piloto WAG
s ns n
co io tia
ul ns l
d

G
Fi itho

Ap ran
el u
w
d t

a complete
ex

lic es interpretation
pa

ac c of pilot Supervisión del proceso

ns

io a la
io

ne d projects (e.g. mediante programas 3-5

ns

s e
*F

Prudhoe Bay) integrales de adquisición de

W ca
AG m datos e inyecciones de años
po
trazadores
Su
l
cc
es

projects Rendimiento del proyecto, rentabilidad

sf
u

y evaluación de posibles expansiones

de campo

Vigilancia de Unsuccessful
proyectos proJects

Pocos casos
(Nuevas estrategias de drenaje)

Programas de optimizacion

Fig. 1. From pilot projects to field expansions: Planning, surveillance, evaluation and management of international WAG projects

167
8 Manrique E., Calderon G., Mayo L. And Stirpe M. T. SPE 50648

/
55

1
300
50

Temperature ( ° F)
250
45
20

’
0 g2
_ 40

/4
35 g’
0

150
100 05
30
1

25 50
2

N,
20
3

10, 20, 30, 40, 50,

4

Viscosity(oP) Viscosity Ratio

5

Fig. 2. °API vs. Viscosity (31/56 projects) Fig. 3. Temperature vs. Viscosity Ratio (19/56 projects)

300

Gas Flooding 25 g4
6°/ 0
Net Thickness (ft)

Primary 200
14%
150

100

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Water Flooding Permeability (mD)
80%

Fig. 4. Previous Recovery Methods (32/56 projects) Fig. S. Net Thickness vs. Permeability (30/56 projects)

300
30

250 1 25

20
200 O

150
E 10

5 a HC

50
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
De p t h (ft› Total solvent injected (%HCPV)

Fig. 6. Temperature vs. Depth (26/56 projects) Fig. 7. Recovery vs. Total solvent injected
(20/56 projects)

168
SPE 50645 Water-Alternating-Gas Flooding in Venezuela: Selection of Candidates Based on Screening Criteria of International Field Experiences 9

50

40 B HC

@ 15

E 10 20

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50
Solvent Slug Size (%HCPV) Viscosity Ratfo

Fig. 8. Recovery vs. Solvent Slug Size (19/56 projects) Fig. 9. Recovery vs. Viscosity Ratio (12/56 projects)

9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000 @M
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Net Thickness (ft) Reservolr Pressure (psi)

Fig. 10. Recovery vs. Net Thickness (27/56 projects) Fig. 11. Injection Pressure vs. Reservoir Pressure
(21/56 projects)

169