See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268685463

Studies of Production under Bubblepoint

Conference Paper · August 1999

DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609.201406340

CITATIONS READS
6 1,509

4 authors, including:

Arne Skauge
University of Bergen / Energy Research Norway
264 PUBLICATIONS   4,243 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fault facies - Incorporation of 3D fault zone properties in reservoir models View project

Current research activities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arne Skauge on 24 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

2077

Studies of Production under Bubblepoint

A. SKAUGE, G.S. HAASKJOLD, P.A. ORMEHAUG and M.G. AARRA

Norsk Hydro ASA, Bergen, Norway

Abstract
Studies of production under bubblepoint including both experiments and simulations are presented.
A novel approach for modeling of critical gas saturation is described. Depletion rate dependent
critical gas saturation gave a different GOR development on individual wells, and seems also to
better match the production history. Experimental studies have investigated how production under
bubblepoint effects the oil recovery. Waterflooding at condition below bubblepoint was compared
to standard waterfloods above bubblepoint. The paper also summarize critical gas saturation data
measured by different experimental techniques and conditions, and discusses the effect of different
factors on the critical gas saturation.

Introduction

Depressurization of North Sea reservoirs have been presented for watered-out reservoirs [1-3], but
may also be a part at an early stage of the field production period[4]. It has been known for a long
time that released gas below bubblepoint may improve oil recovery[5-7].
As reservoir pressure drops below the bubble point pressure of the fluid, the oil becomes
supersaturated with gas. Then, as the supersaturation exceeds a threshold value, dissolved gas starts
going out of solution in the form of nucleated gas bubbles. The size of these bubbles increases as
the pressure is reduced further, the growth being driven by mass transfer from the liquid phase and
by volume expansion due to decreasing pressure. Smaller bubbles flow with the oil, while larger
bubbles become trapped at pore throats and continue to grow. Eventually, the coalescence of
adjoining bubbles results in the formation of a continuous gas phase. Recently, McDougall and
Sorbie[8] have published an approach to estimate the critical gas saturation from pore scale
mechanisms.
Critical gas saturation. A commonly used definition of the critical gas saturation is that the critical
gas saturation is the maximum gas saturation at which the gas relative permeability remains zero.
However, critical gas saturation has been defined in different ways in literature. Moulu and
Longeron [9] defined Sgc as the maximum gas saturation before any flow of gas may occur. Another
definition is that Sgc is the saturation at which expanding and newly liberated gas can move freely
to the top of the reservoir (Kortekaas and van Poelgeest [10]. Li and Yortsos [11] defined Sgc as the
gas saturation at which the gas phase first reaches the production outlet, while the definition by
Firoozabadi et al. [12] is that Sgc is the minimum gas saturation at which gas phase flow can occur.
Kamath and Boyer [13] defined the critical gas saturation as the saturation when the measured GOR
increased from the dissolved GOR. The applied definition of Sgc will be discussed further under the
presentation of experimental results.

EAGE - 10th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Brighton, UK, 18-20 August, 1999
 2

Factors affecting critical gas saturation. As mentioned above, different investigators have used
different definitions of Sgc. The reported values in literature therefore depend, to some extent, on
both the experimental technique used and the interpretation of data. Values of the critical gas
saturation as ranging from 1 % of the pore volume to more than 30 % have been reported in
literature. A summary of measured Sgc at different conditions is given in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of critical gas saturation measurements in literature.
Reference Sgc (dP/Pb)/dt dP/dt dPsuper K Is Sgc reduced with Comments
depletion rate ?
(%) (1/D) (psi/D) (psi) (mD)
Kamath [13] 10 0.01 20 6 0.1 ? Lib. gas,
Kamath [13] 1 0.1 ? Inj. gas
Madaoui [14] 4,4-26 0.05-12 3-12 0(?) ? Vugular cores
Dumore [15] 0.1-1 350 Yes Average
Handy [16] 4-11 >4000 40-200 Yes
Abgrall [17] 17-26 3-15 0 (?) ? Vugular cores
Abgrall [17] 2-6 3-15 0 (?) ?
Moulu [9] 6 0.03 0.4 1-10 Yes
Moulu [9] 12 5 75 Yes
Firoozabadi [12] 1 ~10 10-150 605 Yes Expansion
Kortekaas [10] 7-27 0.005-0.3 10-350 600-2D Yes
Stewart [18] 2-20 10-230 30-90 ? Limestone
Aldea [19] 5-38 0.7-200 ? ?
Wit [20] 0.6-2 13-300 0 (?) ?
Danesh [21] 35 1 440 360 ? Glass micromod.
This paper 1 – 6 0.016-0.48 35-1050 30-90 400-1D Yes Berea
This paper 6 -17 0.02-0.16 105-350 30-150 65 ? Reservoir cores

The magnitude of the critical gas saturation depends on several factors. A short summary of the
main factors are presented.
Structure of the porous medium. Experimental results have shown that Sgc may vary with pore size
distribution. Very heterogeneous rocks generally show higher Sgc. Differences in pore geometry,
and clay content and structure also affect the formation of gas bubbles, and thereby the critical gas
saturation ( Kortekaas and van Poelgeest[10] ). However, literature data is not so conclusive about the
effect of permeability on Sgc. Kortekaas and van Poelgeest performed measurements of Sgc on
cores of different permeabilities from two North Sea reservoirs, and they found no dependence on
permeability.
Meso / Mega scale Sgc is assumed to be larger than core measured Sgc due to lamina trapping and
change in force balance. Extrapolating from core measurements to Brent field conditions, Sgc was
estimated to 10 %. The vertical transport within each flow unit during depressurization suggests an
additional 3 %, while further 2 % account for geological trapping[1].
Pressure decline rate. Sgc is often found to be lower when the pressure decline rate is reduced, as
shown in Table 1. Experiments by Stewart et al.[18] showed that the number of gas bubbles formed
in a system increased with increasing pressure decline rate. This, again, may lead to development of
a larger number of flow channels and thereby higher critical gas saturation. Increasing critical gas
saturation with increasing pressure decline rate was observed by Moulu and Longeron[9], who
attributed the increase in Sgc to increased number of gas bubbles per unit volume of the porous
rock.
Investigations performed by Kortekaas and van Poelgeest[10] include measurements on cores from
different reservoirs, both on virgin (at Swc) and watered-out cores. Their results showed a semi-
logarithmic relationship between pressure decline rate and critical gas saturation, which made it
possible to extrapolate to field pressure decline rates. They suggested that at lower pressure decline
rates, gas tends to diffuse from the supersaturated liquid to already existing bubbles and speed the
growth of these. This may result in fewer gas channels and thereby lower critical gas saturation. A
A.Skauge, G.Haaskjold, P.A.Ormehaug, and M.Aarra: Studies of Production under Bubblepoint
 3

similar semi-logarithmic relationship between decline rate and Sgc was found for the Brent Field by
Braithwaite [1], who used the relationship to extrapolate to field conditions. It was pointed out,
however, how Sgc on the laboratory scale is dominated by nucleation, while at field decline rates
gravity effects are dominant. The linear extrapolation from one regime to the other is therefore
questionable.

Li and Yortsos [11] found the critical gas saturation to be increasing with the nucleation fraction and
pressure decline rate at relatively high rates, but to be independent of pressure decline rate at
sufficiently small rates. They also expected the effect of pressure decline rate to be more
pronounced for cases with high permeability and low interfacial tension.
In the work by Kamath and Boyer [13], it was pointed out that the different components of the
supersaturation should be understood to evaluate the effect of pressure decline rate. They stated that
if the supersaturation due to dynamic effects was small compared to the component due to capillary
effects, the critical gas saturation should be independent of pressure decline rate. This means that in
low permeable reservoirs, where the capillary component is dominating, the effect of pressure
decline on Sgc may be less significant than for high permeable reservoirs.
Oil saturation at the start. Kortekaas and van Poelgeest found systematically higher Sgc for
watered-out cores (low So ) compared to cores at Swc. They explain this by the fact that more gas
bubbles are formed for the watered-out case due to more restricted diffusion of gas through water
than through oil. In addition, they point out that the higher gas/water interfacial tension (IFT)
compared to gas/oil IFT increases the relative importance of capillary forces compared to buoyancy
(gravity) forces for the case with high water saturation. This might retard upward migration of gas
and lead to higher critical gas saturations.

Supersaturation. When the reservoir pressure is reduced below the bubble point, nucleation will
occur and bubbles will grow, coalesce, and move due to the gravity field before a continuous gas
phase is formed. Supersaturation is measured by the pressure reduction before a free gas phase
appears or, as defined by Kamath and Boyer [13], the difference between the saturation pressure
corresponding to the amount of dissolved gas and the liquid pressure. The supersaturation consists
of two components, one due to capillary forces and another due to dynamic effects. In low
permeability rocks the capillary component of supersaturation may become very significant, while
in high permeability rocks this component is relatively insignificant.
The experimental data reported does not show a strong systematical relation between
supersaturation and the critical gas saturation. However, the trends generally show that the critical
gas saturation was reduced as supersaturation was decreased[9,12].
Amount of dissolved gas. Experiments performed by Kortekaas and van Poelgeest [10] show that
higher GOR gives higher values of Sgc. However, the solution gas/oil ratio has a stronger influence
on the rate of buildup of a free gas saturation than on the level of critical gas saturation.

Method for gas generation. Often, the critical gas saturation is established by extrapolating the gas
relative permeability curve for an external gas drive process (gas injection). Another way of finding
Sgc is by measurement of the gas saturation at the point when the gas becomes mobile under an
internal gas expansion process (solution gas drive). As these two methods are fundamentally
different, the resulting critical gas saturations are also different.

Laboratory measurements by Stewart et al. [18] showed significantly different gas/oil relative
permeability characteristics for solution gas drive processes compared to external gas injection
processes. The solution gas drive process was found to give the highest oil recovery.

EAGE - 10th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Brighton, UK, 18-20 August, 1999
 4

Kamath and Boyer [13] found significantly lower Sgc values for experiments with constant gas
injection rate than for pressure depletion experiments. Measurements on the same core showed an
Sgc of 1 % for the external gas drive experiment compared to 10 % for internal gas drive. These
results may be due to viscous fingering and/or supersaturation. They conclude that external gas
drive processes are incorrect to determine critical gas saturation for internal processes. Most of the
gas present in the current field simulations originates from the oil phase by pressure depletion,
rather than from gas injection.
Gas/liquid interfacial tension. There are not clearcut systematical trends, which means that the
interfacial tension might not be a key parameter. Kortekaas and van Poelgeest show higher Sgc
when the IFT was lowered, but this trend was not apparent at high IFT values.
If the normalized pressure decline is in the order of 5x10-6 hours , the data of Kortekaas and van
−1

Poelgeest show a critical gas saturation of 4 - 9 %PV, depending on the type of reservoir (A or B).
Higher depletion rates increase the Sgc. For the center region of the reservoir model used[4] the
normalized depletion rate may reach values of 5-6x10-6 hours , indicating critical gas saturation
−1

values of 4 - 9 % or less.

Effective critical gas saturation. The basic idea was to perform fine scale simulations of some
representative field scale grid blocks to obtain effective values for the coarse scale critical gas
saturation. As discussed above, very heterogeneous rocks and rocks with vertical barriers tend to
show higher critical gas saturations than homogeneous rocks. Core samples from several wells have
therefore been evaluated to see whether it was necessary to use fine scale simulations to incorporate
all significant permeability variations. The results from these simulations would then have been
used for upscaling of critical gas saturation from core scale to grid block scale.

Experimental

Critical gas saturation was measured by different experimental techniques and conditions. In-situ
saturation monitoring was used to follow the gas accumulation in the core, when the core was
depleted from the top or from the bottom end. Effect of reservoir fluid versus model fluid, and
reservoir cores versus outcrop cores have also been studied. Critical gas saturation varied in the
range of 1 to 17 saturation units in these experiments.

Composite core models of both outcrop Berea sandstone and a North Sea reservoir have been used.
Core lengths has been from 30 to 100 cm and pore volumes within the range of 80 to 430 ml.
Different types of core flooding experiments have been performed:
1) Depletion experiments at 22oC with model fluids both at 150 Bar and at reservoir pressure.
2) Depletion experiments at reservoir conditions with crude oil.
3) Waterflooding above bubblepoint, reservoir conditions, reservoir core and fluid.
4) Waterflooding below bubblepoint, reservoir core, depleted reservoir fluids.

Depletion experiments were performed by retracting fluids, either directly to a pump, or through a
back pressure regulator that was controlled by a pump. Constant pressure depletion rates were
accurately controlled by these pumps. Depletion both from top and from bottom on vertical oriented
cores have been performed. Three experiments have also been run on horizontal cores that were
rotated during depletion (270 degree back and forth, 20 min./cycle) to avoid gas segregation.
Depletion rates (dP/Pb/dt), given in Table 2 and 3, were varied between 0,016 and 0,48/day.

The critical gas saturation was determined either by analyses of production history during the
experiments or by analyses of the saturation development inside the core. The in-situ saturation
A.Skauge, G.Haaskjold, P.A.Ormehaug, and M.Aarra: Studies of Production under Bubblepoint
 5

measurements were performed with a X-ray scanning equipment. A thin sapphire tube at the outlet
end of the core holder allowed visual observation of the gas produced. All water floods were run
vertically by injecting water at 6 ml/hr at the bottom of the core. To prevent gas diffusion, the cores
were wrapped in teflon and aluminum foil inside a viton sleeve before mounting in the core holder.
Clean cores were evacuated and then saturated with brine or oil. In some of the experiments, water
was present as irreducible water saturation (Table 2 and 3). Reservoir cores were aged at reservoir
temperature for more than a month.

Fluids. The fluids used were synthetic brine, n-decane saturated with methane, and crude oil. For
all experiments run at room temperature the methane/decane fluid system was used. For the
experiments with in-situ saturation monitoring 10% of the n-decane was replaced by 1-iododecane
to improve accuracy of saturation measurement.

Calculations. For the experiments where in-situ saturation has been measured, the reported values
for Sgc has been determined from gas saturation buildup curves like those shown in Fig. 1, as a point
where the increase in gas saturation starts to fall off. Additionally, the first visual gas observation
has been time corrected back to when this gas leaves the core. This usually gives a lower value for
Sgc. The X-ray measurements have been corrected for decreasing oil density. For the other
experiments, reported values for Sgc has been calculated from production and pressure, taking a rise
in produced GOR as the criteria for Sgc. At this point the produced volume of oil at atmospheric
pressure has been corrected for dead volumes in the production line, and the remaining oil volume
in the core has been corrected for shrinkage of oil.

Experimental results.

Figure 1 compare gas saturation development in the core when depletion was performed from the
top or the bottom of a vertical oriented composite Berea core at a depletion rate of 0.002 h-1. The
experiments started from 100 % oil saturation. The results represents average gas saturations in the
core at different pressures during the depletion experiments, not including the accumulation of gas
in the top of the core (Fig.2). As can be seen from Figure 1 the gas saturation development is
similar in the two experiments until Sgc. Gas saturation exceeds zero at a pressure of 0.98 Pb.
Further reduction in pressure to ~ 0.95 Pb results in an average gas saturation of about 3% pv,
probably corresponding to the critical gas saturation in these experiments. The average gas
saturation with further reduction in pressure increases slightly, but at a much lower gradient. The
two experiments differ with respect to which fluids are produced after Sgc is achieved, and they
show some difference in saturation when gas is mobile. As observed in a visual cell mounted at the
outlet end of the core the pressure drawdown from the bottom of the core give production of oil
from the core while pressure drawdown from the top of the core produces mostly gas after critical
gas saturation is achieved. The difference may be related to buoyancy effects.

Figure 2 shows the development of oil (and gas) saturation along the core at different times for the
above discussed depletion experiment with drawdown from the top of the core, depletion rate equal
to 0.002 h-1, Soi = 1 at the start of the experiment. The saturation scans correspond to pressures (in
fraction of bubblepoint pressure) of 1.06, 0.95 and 0.6 Pb, respectively. The first saturation scan,
performed above bubblepoint, do reflect confidence in the method with respect to measure of oil
saturation, as the average oil saturation is ~ 1. The saturation scan at 0.95 Pb reflect a saturation just
below the critical gas saturation (Sgc ~ 3% pv) and show a rather uniform distribution of oil
throughout the core. Further reduction in pressure shows that the average gas saturation in the core
increases also above Sgc, and also that a gas cap is evolving at the top end of the core. The high gas
saturation located in three positions along the core reflects joints between different core elements. A

EAGE - 10th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Brighton, UK, 18-20 August, 1999
 6

high gas saturation in these positions was observed as soon as a gas saturation was established in
the core.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show depletion experiments performed with an outcrop Berea core (Fig.3)
and with a reservoir core (Fig. 4). Analyses of the produced fluids together with observations from a
visual cell were used to determine and discuss the critical gas saturation in the two experiments.
The experimental conditions were similar in the two experiments (Table 1). Water was not present
in the cores, and the oil phase consisted of methane saturated decane with a bubblepoint of 150 bar.
Both cores were oriented vertically with drawdown from the top at a depletion rate of 0.002 h-1. The
effective bubblepoint due to supersaturation is indicated in the figures.

A different behavior in production history is observed in the two experiments. In the Berea core
experiment the oil production increases steadily after the supersaturation has been exceeded and
shows a large reduction in the oil production soon after the first rise in the Gas-Oil-Ratio (GOR) has
been detected. Using the first significant increase in GOR as an indication of a continuous gas flow
through the core, leads to a critical gas saturation of 1.8% pv, which nearly coincide with the first
gas visually observed. For the experiment run in the reservoir core the determination of a critical
gas saturation is more difficult. The first small rise in GOR was observed at a gas saturation of
about 6.5% pv. However, this do not influence the rate of oil production significantly. At a pressure
of ~ 0.74 Pb a significant rise in GOR is observed and also a change in the slope of the oil
production curve. Considering this point as a sign of the critical gas saturation, indicate a critical
gas saturation of 11.5% pv. At a gas saturation of ~ 17% pv, the oil production ceases and mainly
gas is produced. The first gas in the optical cell, however, was observed already at the pressure
identified as the effective bubble point (Sg~0). Near 20 gas bubbles with a total volume less then 0.3
ml were observed before Sg = 6.5% .

For the experiments performed using Berea core material, Table 2, the results observed suggest the
following relations:
- Sgc is lower when pressure drawdown is performed from the top of a vertical oriented core
compared to a horizontal rotating core.
- Pressure drawdown from the bottom or from the top of a vertically oriented core do not
influence Sgc.
- Increase in pressure and GOR do not change Sgc.
- The presence of an irreducible water saturation seems to have little influence on Sgc.
- Increased depletion rate seems to increase Sgc, Figure 5.

For the experiments performed using reservoir core material, Table 3, the results observed suggest
the following relations:
- Sgc is slightly lower with a vertical core compared to a horizontal, rotating core.
- Sgc shows no significant dependence on depletion rates.
- Experiments with methane/decane show lower Sgc values then experiments with reservoir fluid,
but they are run on different reservoir cores.
- Prescence of connate water has no strong influence on Sgc, but a small reduction is observed.
- With methane/decane fluid system, Sgc is reduced at higher Pb.

Discussion of the results. The most obvious observation from the total of experiments, is that the
reservoir cores give high values for Sgc, while Berea cores give low values. The Sgc values for
reservoir cores also principally fall in two groups. These groups are separated both by fluid system,
core length and the fact that core plugs are drilled from different seal-peals with possible structural
differences. However, all reservoir cores have the same permeability and porosity. A somewhat

A.Skauge, G.Haaskjold, P.A.Ormehaug, and M.Aarra: Studies of Production under Bubblepoint

 7

higher critical gas saturation is calculated for horizontal cores compared to vertical. It may be that a
change in the force balance influence Sgc. There is also a possibility that the difference is a pure
laboratory effect, with gas being trapped in the horizontal core. For the horizontal reservoir core the
first gas observation coincide with the rise in GOR. In most vertical experiments on reservoir cores
the first gas in the production line has been observed at very low gas saturations, near where the oil
production starts. In most vertical depletions on Berea cores, the first gas is observed at a gas
saturation less then 1% pv lower then the reported Sgc . In the experiments with methane/decane at
Pb = 320 bar, extremely small gas bubbles are seen in the sapphire tube, bypassing the oil phase.
This introduces calculation difficulties and high uncertainties. Cores with Swc show higher
supersaturation than identical experiments without water present. Examples are for Berea cores 6
versus 2.5 bar and for the reservoir cores 6 versus 4 bar.

Water injection experiments. A further purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of
depletion on oil recovery during waterfloods. Two experiments have been performed on a North
Sea reservoir core where water flooding has been combined with pressure depletion below the
bubble point. Pressure depletion rates and water injection rates were identical (1 bar/hr and 6 ml/hr)
in the two experiments. In the first experiment, a horisontal depletion (rotating core) was followed
by injecting water from the bottom with the core in a vertical position, at a pressure at 0.52 Pb. The
second experiment consisted of a vertical water injection above Pb, followed by vertical depletion
and a second water flood at the same pressure as in the first experiment. The results are given in
Fig. 6 and 7, presented as oil saturation changes as well as improved recovery. The reason for doing
this is that none of the figures sufficiently describes the nature of the depletion process. As pressure
is reduced below the bubble point, gas comes out of solution with a consequently shrinkage of the
remaining oil. Thus, a large reduction in oil saturation does not necessarily produce much oil. On
the other hand, just recovery data for a depletion process fail to describe the potential left in the
reservoir.

Fig. 6 and 7 show that the water flooding after initial depletion was a little less effective compared
to the other experiment, and also compared to the primary water injection by itself. But this
conclusion is valid only for these experiments and cannot be generalized. As pressure is reduced
below the bubble point, oil permeability is reduced because of an increasing gas saturation. At the
same time the remaining oil volume is reduced due to shrinkage of the oil, and the oil viscosity is
continuously increased. This reduces the potential for a secondary process more and more as the
pressure is reduced. From Fig. 7 it should be easy to see that if the primary depletion process had
been continued to a much lower pressure, no extra oil would have been produced. The residual oil
saturation, however, would have been further reduced, with increasing oil viscosity, thus giving less
extra recovery from the secondary water injection process. In the same way it is obvious that this
depletion was run much too far to give optimal production. The waterflood after depletion started
by producing a gas cap. Ending the depletion near the critical gas saturation, would have reduced
the oil production from depletion only a little. This would have improved the potential for water
flooding to a degree where the end point recovery might well have exceeded the primary water
injection, as observed in ref. 10. The reason for running the depletion that far was to determine the
critical gas saturation.

Pressure reduction after primary water flooding seems to give nearly no oil production (fig. 7), but
might be used for producing gas. A possible potential for producing oil by a secondary water
injection, requires that the depletion is not run too far.

EAGE - 10th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Brighton, UK, 18-20 August, 1999
 8

Simulation model

A simulation study was initiated with the objective to investigate how depletion below bubblepoint
would influence the field production. The simulation model was from the Fensfjord reservoir of the
Brage oil field. The field and Fensfjord model is described in ref. 4. The drive mechanism of this
strongly layered sandstone reservoir has been immiscible WAG. However, the produced gas is
mostly solution gas, not injected gas. To be able to do an evaluation of different production
strategies it is essential to have an updated simulation model that matches historical data and gives
reliable predictions. In this connection it is necessary to have knowledge of how variation in certain
key parameters may affect reservoir behavior. We have quantified the possible variation of a few
selected parameters, and performed simulations to investigate how variations in some of these
parameters influence the reservoir behavior.

As discussed earlier, the critical gas saturation is usually increasing with depletion rate. In the
simulations the depletion rate was assigned according to the depletion history of each grid block.
Strongly depleted zones, and especially regions near production wells, will have high critical gas
saturation. The gas-oil-ratio (GOR) was compared for simulation using variable critical gas
saturation and constant Sgc.

The effect of pressure depletion on reservoir behavior is from general trends described by higher
depletion rate gives higher supersaturation that leads to more bubbles nucleated which again leads
to better recovery.
Establishing critical gas saturation for the field model. The default Sgc in the simulations was 2%.
As discussed earlier, the critical gas saturation seems to be dependent on several factors. In
accordance to Kortekaas et al [10], there exists a dependency of the critical gas saturation on the
pressure decline rate. We generated values for the critical gas saturation directly from the pressure
decline rate in each grid block using equation 1. Two sets of data were used A and B.

Sgc = [log (dP/dt) – log C)] / D (1)

Here, dP/dt is the pressure decline rate and C and D are constants. The constants used for the two
different reservoir types are:

A: C = 5.4x10-6 and D = 25.06

B: C = 5.5x10-7 and D = 21.24
Pressure decline rate. The pressure decline rate used to calculate the critical gas saturation is defined
as pressure decline from time t1 (hours) to time t2 (hours) relative to the bubble point pressure Pb per
hour :

dP/dt = [ P(t1) - P(t2) ] / [ Pb x (t2-t1) ] (2)

The field model was run with a constant critical gas saturation of 2 % to calculate the pressure
decline as function of time for each grid block. A small data-program was made to calculate Sgc for
each grid block. Thereafter the simulation could be restarted using heterogeneous Sgc. A plot of
pressure versus time for eight grid blocks from the flank to the center of the field is shown in Figure
8. It is seen that the drawdown in the central parts of the field is significant compared to the
drawdown on the flank. The average pressure decline rate was calculated, and the result is shown
for layer 5 in Figure 9. As expected with injectors placed at the rim, the pressure decline rate is

A.Skauge, G.Haaskjold, P.A.Ormehaug, and M.Aarra: Studies of Production under Bubblepoint

 9

highest in the producing center of the field, decreasing towards the flank. In the areas with injectors,
the pressure decline rate is negative, meaning that the pressure is building up rather than declining
during the selected time period. Two different Sgc distributions was defined based on the
correlations by Kortekaas. The low Sgc distribution resulting from the A type correlation and the
high Sgc distribution (B) as described in equation 1. For the correlation giving the lowest values of
Sgc the critical gas saturation is in the range 0.0 to 0.04, while for the correlation giving higher
values, Sgc varies in the range 0.0 to 0.09.

Results from simulations

Simulations were run with the two distributions with the critical gas saturation being dependent on
pressure decline rate. The results from these simulations were then compared to the case with a
constant critical gas saturation of 2 %, and gas/oil ratios and pressures from selected wells were
compared to measured data.

Results of oil production from the simulations with heterogeneous Sgc distributions are compared to
the case with a constant Sgc of 2 %. It is seen that for the entire field (Figure 10 and 11), the
cumulative oil production was highest and the GOR lowest for the simulation with a heterogeneous
Sgc distribution with high maximum values. The case having a variable Sgc with low maximum
values gives the lowest oil production and highest GOR, while the case with a constant critical gas
saturation of 2 % gives values between the two extremes.

However, looking at some selected wells shows that the effect of different Sgc distributions on the
well behavior varies considerably between wells. It was also evident that the effect of Sgc is
dependent on the position of the well. The wells close to the center of the field, where the pressure
drawdown is great, are more affected by critical gas saturation than the more distant wells.

To be able to give recommendations as to which Sgc distribution to use in the field model, the
predictions have to be compared to measured values. In this connection, the gas/oil ratio is a useful
indicator. The simulations show that the behavior of wells is sensitive to critical gas saturation at
times where measured GOR data exists. The measured GOR of well A-40 is higher than the
simulated GOR, Figure 12. To match the GOR development in this well either a lower constant Sgc
had to be selected or alternatively another relation for lower heterogeneous Sgc . Actually, this well
was fairly well matched by using a constant Sgc of 1%.

Simulated and measured values of GOR are shown for several wells in Figures 13. The observed
trend is that measured GOR values generally are higher than simulated GOR values, indicating
lower critical gas saturations than those used in the simulations. Based on these results, a
heterogeneous Sgc distribution with maximum values as high as 9 % is not considered probable.
The results from different Sgc distributions show that either a heterogeneous Sgc distribution with
low values or a constant Sgc of 1 %- 2 % should be preferred in field predictions. With regards to
the distributions with lower Sgc values, a variable Sgc gives a better match of the varaitions from low
GOR wells near the flank to high GOR wells near in the center.

EAGE - 10th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Brighton, UK, 18-20 August, 1999
 10

Conclusions:
Experimental
1) Critical gas saturation is higher in the current reservoir cores than in Berea core material.
2) In the Berea core material Sgc increases with increasing depletion rate, while Sgc shows no
significant dependence on depletion rates in the reservoir cores.
3) Cores with irreducible water saturation show higher supersaturation than identical
experiments without water present, but Swc have little effect on Sgc.
4) Comparing depletion followed by waterflooding and depletion after waterflooding gave
similar oil recovery, but this conclusion may depend on the degree of depletion.
5) In-situ saturation monitoring give valuable information about gas saturation along the cores,
detection of Sgc, and especially the development of gas cap at the top of the core.
6) The effect of connate water, bubble point pressure and GOR on Sgc is found to be small
compared to properties like i.e. type of porous media and depletion rate (Berea).
Simulation
7) Wells close to the center of the field, where the pressure drawdown is great, are more affected
by critical gas saturation than more distant wells
8) The simulations with constant Sgc of 1 % and 2 % and the simulation with variable Sgc in the
range 0-4 % generally give the best match to measured gas/oil ratios.
9) The critical gas saturation is recommended to be measured as it may influence oil recovery
10) There is no need for fine scale simulations for calculation of effective critical gas saturations,
as no vertical barriers exist within the main layers of the simulation model.

Symbols
C constant
D constant
dPsuper supersaturation pressure, bar
dP/dt pressure decline rate, bar /h
GOR gas/oil ratio, cc/cc
K absolute rock permeability, mDarcy
P pressure, bar
S saturation, fraction
t time, h
pv pore volume

Subscript
b bubble point
w water
gc gas, critical
o oil
i Initial

References
[1] Braithwaite, C.I.M, and Schulte, W.M.: “Transforming the Future of the Brent Field: Depressurization
– The Next development Phase,” SPE 25026 presented at the European Petroleum Conference, Cannes,
France, 1992.

A.Skauge, G.Haaskjold, P.A.Ormehaug, and M.Aarra: Studies of Production under Bubblepoint

 11

[2] Braithwaite, C.I.M.: “A Review of IOR/EOR Opportunities for the Brent Field: Depressurization, the
Way Forward,” paper SPE/DOE 27766 presented at the Ninth Symposium on IOR, Tulsa, OK (April
1994).
[3] Scherpenisse, W., Wit, K., Zweers, A.E., Schoei, G., and van Wolfswinkel, A.: “Predicting Gas
Saturation Buildup during Depressurization of a North Sea Reservoir,” SPE 28842, Presented at
EUROPEC, London, 25-27 Oct. 1994.
[4] Skauge, A., and Berg, E.: “Immiscible WAG Injection in the Fensfjord Formation of the Brage Oil
Field,” paper 014, proceeding from EAGE, 9th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, The
Hague, 20-22 Oct. 1997.
[5] Holmgren, C.R., and Morse,R.A.: “Effect of Free Gas Saturation on Oil Recovery by Waterflooding,”
Trans. AIME 192, 135-140 (1951)
[6] Fayers, F.J. and Matthews, J.D.: “Evaluation of Normalized Stone Methods for Estimating Three-Phase
Relative Permeabilities,” SPE 11277, SPEJ (April 1984).
[7] Skauge, A. and Aarra, M.: “Effect of Wettability on the Oil recovery by WAG,” presented at the 7th
European IOR-Symposium in Moscow, (Oct. 1993), Proc. Vol. 2, 452-458.
[8] McDougall, S.R., and Sorbie, K.S.: “ Estimation of Critical Gas Saturation during Pressure Depletion in
Virgin and Waterflooded Reservoirs,” 9th European Symposium on Improved Oil recovery, the Hague,
20-22 Oct 1997.
[9] Moulu,J.C., and Longeron,D.: “Solution-Gas Drive: Experiments and Simulation,” Proc., 5th European
Symposium on IOR, Budapest (April 1989) 145--54.
[10] Kortekaas, T.F.M. and van Poelgeest, F.: “Liberation of Solution Gas During Pressure Depletion of
Virgin and Watered-Out Reservoirs,” SPERE (Aug. 1991) 329-335.
[11] Li,X., and Yortsos,Y.C.: “Critical Gas Saturation: Modeling and Sensitivity Studies,” paper SPE 26662
presented at the 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Houston, TX (Oct. 1993).
[12] Firoozabadi,A., Ottesen, B., and Mikkelsen, M.: “Measurement of Supersaturation and Critical Gas
Saturation,” SPE 19694 (1989) and SPEFE (Dec. 1992) 337-43.
[13] Kamath,J., and Boyer,R.E.: “Critical Gas Saturation and Supersaturation in Low-Permeability Rocks,”
paper SPE 26663 presented at the 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Houston,
TX (Oct. 1993).
[14] Madaoui, K.: “Critical Gas Saturation in Depletion Drive,”Reports of International Symp. on HC
Exploration, Drilling, and Production Techniques (Dec. 1975) 203-220.
[15] Dumore,J.M.: “Development of Gas Saturation during Solution Gas Drive in an Oil Layer below a Gas
Cap,” SPEJ, (Sept. 1970) 211--218.
[16] Handy,L.L.: “A Laboratory Study of Oil Recovery by Solution Gas Drive,” Trans. AIME 213, (1958)
310--315.
[17] Abgrall,E., and Iffly,R.: “Physical Studies of Flow by Expansion of Dissolved Gas,” Revue de
L’Institut Francais du Petrole (1973) Vol 28, no.5, 667--692.
[18] Stewart,C.R., C.R., Hunt, E.B., Schneider, F.N., Geffen, T.M., and Berry, V.J.: “The Role of Bubble
Formation in Oil Recovery by Solution Gas Drive in Limestones,” Trans AIME 201, (1954) 294--301.
[19] Aldea, G.: “Mechanism of Heavy Oil Recovery by Dissolved Gas Expansion,” Revue de L’Institut
Francais du Petrole (1970) Vol. 25, no.12, 1403--17.
[20] Wit,K.: “Solution Gas Drive in Heavy Oil Reservoirs,” paper presented at the Symp. on Heavy Crude
Rec., Maracaibo, (July 1974).
[21] Danesh, A., Peden, J.M, Krinis, D., and Henderson, G.D.: “Pore Level Visual Investigation of Oil
Recovery by Solution Gas Drive and Gas Injection,” paper SPE 16956 presented at the 62nd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Dallas, TX (Sep. 1987).

Acknowledgement - We acknowledge Norsk Hydro for permission to publish this paper. We also thanks Anne Grethe
Hansen for valuable contributions to this study.

EAGE - 10th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Brighton, UK, 18-20 August, 1999
 12

Table 2. Critical gas saturation, Berea Cores

Permeability Core Pb (dP/Pb)/dt Swi Sgc
(mD) Orientation (bar) (1/D) (%) (%)
400 Horizontal 150 0.048 0 5
400 Vertical 150 0.048 0 2.9
1000 V 150 0.016 0 1.8
1000 V 150 0.048 0 3
1000 V 150 0.144 0 4.5
1000 V 150 0.48 0 6
800 V 150 0,048 0 1.8
800 V 320 0.0225 0 2
800 V 150 0.048 19 2.2

Table 3, Critical gas saturation, reservoir cores (1 and 2), permeability 63-67 mD
Core Fluid Pb (dP/Pb)/dt Swi Sgc
orientation (bar) (1/D) (%) (%)
Horizontal (1) Reservoir 330 0.0218 36 17
Horizontal (1) Reservoir 330 0.0727 36 17
Vertical (1) Reservoir 330 0.0727 27 15
Vertical (2) C1/C10 150 0.048 28 9.8
Vertical (2) C1/C10 150 0.16 28 9.8
Vertical (2) C1/C10 150 0.048 0 11.5
Vertical (2) C1/C10 320 0.075 28 6

100

90

0,05
pressure 80
drawdown from
bottom
0,04 70
pressure
drawdown from top
Core posistion (cm)
Average Gas Saturation (frac.)

60
0,03
50

0,02 40

30 Sg(av.)=0.001
0,01 Sg(av.)=0.025
20 Sg(av.)=0.049

0
10
0,80 0,85 0,90 0,95 1,00 1,05

-0,01 0
0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1
P/Pb
Oil Saturation (fraction)

Figure 1. Average gas saturation vs. pressure. Figure 2. Oil saturation profiles at different pressures
Depletion from top and bottom of the core. (1.06, 0.95 and 0.6 Pb).

A.Skauge, G.Haaskjold, P.A.Ormehaug, and M.Aarra: Studies of Production under Bubblepoint

 13

7,0 1400 12,0 3000

6,0 1200 10,0 2500

Gas Production (ml)

Sgc=0.018

Gas Production (ml)

5,0 1000
Oil Production (ml)

Sgc=0.115

Oil Production (ml)

8,0 2000
Oil
4,0 800 Oil
Sgc Sgc
6,0 1500
Gas Gas
3,0 600
GOR GOR

2,0 400 4,0 1000

GOR,
GOR,
1,0 200 2,0 500
Sg=0.065
0,0 0 Sg=0.17
0,0 0
0,99 0,97 0,95 0,93 0,91 0,89 0,87 0,85
P,sup. 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5
P/Pb P,sup.
P/Pb

Figure 3. Depletion of a vertical Berea core at 0.048/D, Figure 4. Depletion of a North Sea reservoir core at
C1/C10. 0.048/D, C1/C10.

1 0,8

0,73 Water flooding - Depletion - Water flooding

0,7
Depletion - Water flooding
0,1 0,64
0,6
(dP/dt)/Pb

0,01 0,5
Oil saturation

0,4 0,38

0,001
0,3

0,19 0,18
0,0001 0,2
0,18 0,14
0,1 0,12
0,13
0,00001
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5
Injected brine (PV)
Sgc

Figure 5. Effect of depletion rate on critical gas saturation. Figure 6. Oil saturation during water injection (x-axis)
and depletion (vertical lines) processes.

0,8
0,74 0,76
0,75
0,7
0,71

0,6

0,5
Recovery (STO)

Water flooding - Depletion - Water flooding

0,4 Depletion - Water flooding

0,3
0,21
0,2

0,1

0,00 Sgc=0.17
0
1,1 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5
P/Pb

Figure 7. Oil recovery during water depletion (x-axis) Figure 8. Pressure during depletion for 8 grid blocks
and water injection (vertical lines) processes. from the flank towards center of the field.

EAGE - 10th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Brighton, UK, 18-20 August, 1999
 14

Figure 9. Areal view of pressure decline rate.

Figure 10. Oil production vs. time with constant Figure 11. GOR vs. time with constant and variable Sgc.
and variable Sgc.

Figure 12. GOR for well located between center and flank. Figure 13. GOR for different wells measured and
simulated.

A.Skauge, G.Haaskjold, P.A.Ormehaug, and M.Aarra: Studies of Production under Bubblepoint

View publication stats