Spe 191348 Ms

SPE-191348-MS
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEBERG/proceedings-pdf/18BERG/1-18BERG/D011S001R003/1189171/spe-191348-ms.pdf by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 23 October 2021
Reservoir Management of Matured Complex Fields Based on Production
Data, Standalone and Reservoir Coupled Modeling: Establishing Optimized
Drainage Strategy and Lessons Learned
Vahid Alipour Tabrizy, Mohsin Siddique, and Andreas Mathiassen, Statoil ASA
Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Norway One Day Seminar held in Bergen, Norway, 18 April 2018.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the 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 SPE copyright.
Abstract
Optimizing drainage strategy is an important part of petroleum reservoir management, and has to be
implemented as a dynamic process. This work describes a unique combination of standalone and coupled
reservoir simulation modeling as well as production decline curve analysis and tracer data interpretation to
establish optimal gas injection strategy in Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields in the Norwegian Sea for
improved reservoir management in terms of reserves and economy.
The drainage strategy challenge of Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields is how to prioritize gas export
from the fields and how to allocate the remaining gas in the efficient injectors for enhanced condensate
recovery. The results triggered a change in injection strategy to rank gas disposition internally in optimized
locations both in Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields, and to split the injection between the two fields.
The results showed that gas-oil-ratio development of producers, gas injection efficiency (GIF), well
to well tracer communication and produced water-gas ratio development are the key factors. Reservoir
segments with lower produced gas-oil ratio and higher water-gas ratio development have shown the most
favorable locations for gas injection. It is demonstrated also that injection efficiency decreases by time;
accordingly the drainage strategy consists in two phases: Optimized gas cycling period into efficient
injectors in Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields and a blowdown phase including converting injectors
to producers when the injection is not efficient. The work addresses the workflow and methodology for
drainage strategy, main challenges and related lessons associated to reservoir simulation results, compared
with production data and tracer results. The paper will shed light on the future of reservoir management and
forecasting of drainage strategy for matured complex fields.
Keywords: Reservoir management, drainage strategy, gas injection efficiency, tracer, Smørbukk field,
Smørbukk Sør field, reservoir coupled modeling
Introduction
Åsgard unit is located 250 kilometers North-West of Trondheim in the Haltenbanken of the Norwegian Sea
and currently consists of three producing fields; Smørbukk, Smørbukk Sør and Midgard. Figure 1 shows
2 SPE-191348-MS
an overview of the Åsgard area. The fields were developed with two production units: Åsgard A as floating
production, storage and off-loading (FPSO) unit and Åsgard B as a semi-submersible platform.
Figure 1—Overview of the Åsgard area in the Haltenbanken of the Norwegian Sea
Midgard field is a lean gas condensate (initial GOR is ~ 5000-6500 Sm3/Sm3) (Haaland et al., 1996; NPD)
with Darcy sand permeability. The drainage strategy of Midgard field is natural depletion and is producing
via Åsgard subsea gas compression to Åsgard B to increase the recovery and overcome minimum flow
rate issues and multiphase flow assurances such as hydrates due to the long producing pipeline (~ 80 km).
Smørbukk field is situated on a large fault block rotated towards east-southeast and is developed with vertical
or slightly deviated commingled wells, targeting Garn, Ile, Tofte, Tilje and Are Formations consisting of
thick and thin sand layers with good lateral and poor vertical communication (Haaland et al., 1996). The
initial GOR of Smørbukk field was around 1500 Sm3/Sm3 and the field is producing to both Åsgard A and
Åsgard B installations (Haaland et al., 1996). Smørbukk Sør field is a faulted dome structure, developed in
Garn, Ile and Tilje Formations with horizontal producing wells and vertical injection wells at the crest of
the field. The initial GOR of Smørbukk Sør field was around 300 Sm3/Sm3 and the field is producing only
to Åsgard A (Haaland et al., 1996). Gas is transferred from Åsgard A to Åsgard B, depending on Åsgard A
compressor capacities. The transferred gas together with produced gas from Åsgard B is exported to Gassco
processing plant in Karst0. The remained gas from Åsgard A is reinjected into Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør
fields. Åsgard A FPSO is used for storing produced hydrocarbon and offloading. Åsgard produced crude oil
and condensate are mixed to form a light oil called Åsgard blend. In this paper, Åsgard blend oil is called
‘oil’, for simplicity. Figure 2 shows schematic of Asagrd A and Asagrd B production units with possibility
of gas injection from Åsgard A into Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields.
SPE-191348-MS 3
Figure 2—Schematic of Asagrd A and Asagrd B production units with possibility of gas injection from
Åsgard A into Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields. The Åsgard sales gas is transported from Åsgard B.
Gas injection is one of the most widely used EOR methods for light to medium oil recovery (Muggeridge
et al., 2014; Alvarado and Manrique, 2010). In Norwegian continental shelf, since the oil and gas production
has started from 1971 until 2010, 595 billion Sm3 associated gas has re-injected and extra increased 240
and 270 million Sm3 of oil and condensate have recovered due to gas injection, respectively (Hinderaker
and Njaa, 2010). The final recovery factor for Norwegian fields with gas re-injection as one of drainage
strategy mechanisms is reported in the range of 53-66 % (Hinderaker and Njaa, 2010).
Several laboratory experiments and conceptual numerical simulations revealed the mechanisms
promoting the mobilization of oil in immiscible and miscible gas injection processes for sandstone reservoirs
(Muggeridge et al., 2014; Alipour Tabrizy, 2012; Razak et al., 2009; Johns et al. 2000; Danesh, 1998; Zick,
1986), apart from other mechanisms for gas injection in carbonate fractured reservoirs, water alternating
gas (WAG) injection or tertiary gas injection. The mechanisms for immiscible and miscible gas injection
can be classified as:
• Viscous displacement of oil by injected immiscible gas (Rostami et al., 2010), for voidage
replacement (Clark and Ludolph, 2003), free and forced gravity drainage (Rostami et al., 2010) and
pressure support (Clark and Ludolph, 2003). In Norwegian continental shelf, immiscible up flank
gas injection is implemented successfully in Oseberg (Sognesand, 1977) and Grane (Fjellanger,
2006) fields, due to gravity stable displacement. Immiscible gas injection also can counteract oil
column movement caused by a small pressure difference between different reservoir regions as
reported for Troll field with thin oil leg and giant gas cap (Madsen and Abtahi, 2005).
• During miscible gas injection at certain reservoir pressure, temperature and fluids composition,
extraction of light components (C2 - C6) from oil into the gas phase takes place and the gas becomes
progressively richer until gas becomes fully miscible with the oil (vaporizing drive mechanism);
resulting to lower oil viscosity and lower surface tension between oil and rock; hence improving
oil recovery (Alipour Tabrizy, 2012; Razak et al., 2009; Danesh, 1998).
• During miscible gas injection at certain reservoir pressure, temperature and fluids composition,
intermediate components of gas are condensed into the reservoir oil (condensing drive mechanism);
resulting to lower oil viscosity and lower surface tension between oil and rock; hence improving
oil recovery (Alipour Tabrizy, 2012; Razak et al., 2009; Danesh, 1998). Johns and colleagues
mathematically showed the combined condensing/vaporizing mechanism during multiple contact
gas injection miscibility (Johns et al., 2000).
4 SPE-191348-MS
• During miscible or partially miscible gas injection, diffusion and dissolution of gas into the oil
increase the oil volume (Danesh, 1998; Alipour Tabrizy, 2012). The swollen oil forces out the oil
from the pore spaces, thereby increasing the oil saturation in the displacing mixed oil bank.
• During miscible or partially miscible gas injection, oil viscosity reduces and this reduction
improves the mobility ratio between the oil and injected gas; hence the injection sweep efficiency
increases.
• Miscible gas injection can lead to very low interfacial tension due to vaporization and solubility
effects at certain injection pressures (Alipour Tabrizy, 2012). In addition to increasing the capillary
number, which increases the displacement efficiency, lowering interfacial surface tension can cause
to the formation of water-in-oil emulsions, which improves the mobility ratio and injection sweep
efficiency (Zick, 1986). Successful miscible gas injection in Norwegian continual shelf is reported
for Asagrd, Sleipner East and Statfjord fields (Hinderaker and Njaa, 2010).
Although during the past five decades, extensive laboratory studies, numerical simulations and field
applications of gas injection based EOR processes have been reported (Hinderaker and Njaa, 2010; Fevang
et al., 2000; Muggeridge et al., 2014; Razak et al., 2009; Hoier et al., 2004; Johns et al. 2000; Danesh,
1998; Zick, 1986), very limited number of works addressed combination of reservoir simulation models,
production decline curve analysis and tracer results to establish optimal drainage strategy. The work
presented in this paper has two main objectives. The first is to establish a methodology based on reservoir
simulation models and production data to find optimum gas injection rates for Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør
fields and allocate the injection rate and injection duration for the efficient injectors for enhanced condensate
recovery versus optimum cash flow and economy. The second is to address the main challenges and discuss
uncertainties, pitfalls and related lessons associated to reservoir simulation results and planned forecast
compared with actual production data and tracer results.
Background of Åsgard Drainage Strategy and Challenge Statement

Produced gas from Åsgard unit has been re-injected both in Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields since the
start-up of Åsgard in 1999 with the challenge of how to prioritize the gas export from the fields and how
to allocate the remaining gas in the efficient injectors for enhanced condensate recovery. A decision was
made in 2008 to prioritize injection into Smørbukk Sør field due to prioritizing gas transfer from Åsgard A
and lack of gas availability in Åsgard A for injection and therefore the Smørbukk field injection is reduced
significantly. In 2013, it has been observed that:
✓ Smørbukk Sør field was somewhat depleted (cumulative voidage replacement ratio ~ 0.9) while
Smørbukk field was severely depleted (cumulative voidage replacement ratio ~ 0.35).
✓ Smørbukk field average GOR was ~ 4000 Sm3/Sm3, whereas Smørbukk Sør field average GOR was
~ 8000 Sm3/Sm3.
The challenge of the Åsgard drainage strategy is how to prioritize gas export from the fields to maintain
robust cash flow and simultaneously increase the reserves of Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields. Re-
evaluation of gas injection strategy over time in Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields is addressed in this
paper to answer the following questions:
✓ Is it feasible to reallocate gas from injected gas into Smørbukk Sør field to inject in Smørbukk field?
If yes, what is the optimum rate?
✓ Is it feasible to reduce gas transfer from Åsgard A to Åsgard B to increase gas injection from Åsgard
A in Smørbukk/Smørbukk Sør fields?
✓ Establish prioritized list of gas injectors based on the gas injection efficiency for each injector in
Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields
SPE-191348-MS 5
✓ Assess the gas injection efficiency over time to optimize blowdown phase and to establish robust
drainage strategy
✓ Verify and compare the suggested drainage strategy change after implementation with tracer results
and production data
Methodology
Combination of Eclipse E100 standalone black oil and Eclipse E300 compositional reservoir models,
Eclipse reservoir coupled (RC) model, tracer results and production data are used to establish optimum
drainage strategy. Figure 3 shows the used workflow for drainage strategy study. First, at the lower level,
internal gas disposition is assessed using black oil standalone models for each injector in Smørbukk Sør
(SMS) and Smørbukk (SMB) fields individually. Simulation sensitivities were done by assuming pure
natural pressure depletion for the reference case (no gas injection) and full field gas injection per each
injector with different injection rates for IOR cases to estimate the Gas Injection Efficiency Factor (GIF)
according to the following equation:
(1)
The slope of the cross plot of delta cumulative produced oil between the Ref. case and IOR case versus
cumulative injected gas at different injection rates shows the average gas injection efficiency of each
injector. The higher the gas injection efficiency, the higher the value of the injector and accordingly the
injector has to be prioritized for internal field gas disposition. Simultaneously production trend analysis and
tracer data interpretation were implemented to understand the communication of injectors and producers for
Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields. The production data analysis was compared to standalone simulation
results. The simulation results screened and filtered by comparing with production trend analysis and
tracer results to remove results affected by numerical simulation instabilities and investigate logical
communication for injection in each formation and enhanced oil/condensate recovery from the same
formation. For Smørbukk field and for some scenarios, gas injection in a specific formation enhances the
production from other formations due to the lightening of the production column for commingled wells.
The commingled production from different formations is to have more robust economy for Smørbukk and
Smørbukk Sør wells as reported by Haaland et al. (1996). Crossflow between different formation depends
on the vertical permeability of different formations (Haaland et al., 1996) and should be limited due to
continuous dropping of bottom hole pressure.
Second, at the higher level, Eclipse reservoir coupled (RC) model was used to assess the value of gas
reallocation from Smørbukk Sør field gas injection or gas transfer from Åsgard A to Åsgard B to inject in
the Smørbukk field. The RC model is a useful tool to investigate the responses and interactions between
the Åsgard operating fields for drainage strategy planning, IOR studies, in-fill well drilling and tie-in
evaluations. The RC model consists of one MASTER model which contains the network between the fields,
production, export and injection boundary conditions for the fields and several SLAVE models, one for each
field which contains geological and reservoir properties (such as permeabilities, porosities, PVT regions
data, SCAL data, faults and transmissibility multipliers) and historical well gas injection and production
rates, predicted well constraints as well as perforation intervals of production and injection wells.
6 SPE-191348-MS
Figure 3—Workflow of drainage strategy study
Results and Discussions

As discussed before, internal gas disposition is studied for Smørbukk (SMB) and Smørbukk Sør (SMS)
fields, utilizing black oil standalone simulation models to estimate gas injection efficiency (GIF) for each
injector. Figure 4 shows the cross plot of delta cumulative produced oil versus cumulative injected gas
at different injection rates for Smørbukk field injectors as an example. The figure shows that the average
injection efficiencies of SMB Inj. Well # 1 and SMB Inj. Well # 2 are approximately double of SMB Inj.
Well # 3; hereby SMB Inj. Well # 1 and SMB Inj. Well # 2 have higher priority for injection compare to
SMB Inj. Well # 3.
The gas injection efficiency of injectors also examined over time. Figure 5 illustrates the gas injection
efficiency development of Smørbukk Sør injectors over time from 2014 to 2017. The main recovery
mechanism of gas injection in Smørbukk Sør field is condensate vaporization. The gas injection also
mitigates water coning from aquifer since the production wells are horizontal or highly deviated and placed
near water oil contact. Predicting accurate water development over time (which strongly affects the lifetime
of Smørbukk Sør producers) is the main challenge by reservoir simulations model. In fact, since the reservoir
simulation models are history matched primarily based on well bottom hole pressure, produced gas and
GOR, for some of the producers, the model cannot predict reliable water production. For example, SMS
Prod. Well # 1 started to produce noticeable formation water after reduction of gas injection in Smørbukk Sør
field. SMS Prod. Well # 2 and SMS Prod. Well # 3 also died shortly after reducing gas injection in Smørbukk
Sør field due to water coning while the simulation model could not predict this behavior accurately.
Generally, gas injection efficiency decreases over time as gas breakthrough/channeling occurs, GOR of
producers increases and the remaining oil in the reservoir rock pore spaces becomes heavier by vaporizing
of the lighter components during gas recycling. It is interesting to observe from Figure 4 that the injection
efficiency of the injector in Ile and Tilje Formations is higher than Garn Formation injectors; however, it
decreases more severely over time compared to Garn injectors.
SPE-191348-MS 7
Figure 4—Internal gas disposition study for Smørbukk field injectors
Figure 5—Gas injection efficiency development of Snwbukk Sør field injectors overtime
The Garn Formation is homogenized sand with little dispersed shale where gas has been injected from
start-up of the field production in 1999 and GOR of the producers are high (~ 10000-17000 Sm3/Sm3). The
Tilje and Ile formations are heterogeneous and heterolithic formations with numerous facies associations
and complex facies architecture. These formations contain high amount of shale layers and dispersed
shale. Good reservoir quality can be found in where chloride coating is common and has prevented further
deterioration of the properties due to diagenetic processes. Gas challenging is more severe in the Ile and
Tilje Formations compared to the Garn Formation and the residual hydrocarbon is higher in the Ile and Tilje
Formations compared to the Garn Formation. The gas injection was started in the Ile and Tilje Formations
from 2007; hence the injection efficiency of the Ile/Tilje Formations injector is higher than the Garn
Formation injectors.
Special consideration has to be made for permeability and heterogeneity up scaling for gas injection
simulation studies since by introducing inappropriate permeability cut off, communication between the
layers will be significantly limited or enhanced; hence the models show completely different results than
8 SPE-191348-MS
the actual gas and oil flow through the reservoir. This has reported also by Thibeau (2002) and Pedersen
and Thibeau (2003). In practice and during field production, it is recommended by Viken et al. (2007) to
identify layers with high GOR zones based on Light Well Intervention (LWI) for plugging off; hence the
injected gas will be redirected to optimal zones with lower GOR.
Gas injection potential (injectivity index) depends on the permeability of reservoir around the injector
and is another factor in addition to GIF that has to be considered during drainage strategy planning
for gas injection. Gas injection in injectors with good GIF and high injection potential (high injectivity
index) reduces consumed energy by injection compressors and provides higher amount of oil recovery;
hence energy efficiency (consumed energy per increased recovered oil volume) increases. Accordingly gas
emission is reduced (for example emitted CO2 by compressors per produced oil volume will be reduced),
emphasizing low carbon emission strategy during enhanced oil recovery. Another operational challenge for
injection in formations with low injectivity (low permeability) is flow assurance issues due to gas hydrates
in the pipelines. In particular, this is more challenging when the pipeline is long or the pipeline insulation
is poor. In fact, when the injectivity is poor, the injection rate is relatively low and it is not good enough
to avoid hydrate formation. Drying of injected gas is one of the solutions to mitigate hydrates by reducing
water vapor in the injected gas. However, this process needs topside modification resulting in increasing
the cost and the weight of the production unit.
Communication between injector and producer is investigated by production trend analysis and tracer
results. Figure 6 shows the communication of SMB Prod. Well # 1, SMB Inj. Well # 2 and SMB Inj. Well # 3,
as an example. There is clear communication between SMB Prod. Well # 1 and these two injectors, since the
decline trend of gas production for SMB Prod. Well # 1 is changed after the resumption of injection in SMB
Inj. Well # 3. Even though the production from SMB Prod. Well # 1 continues to drop after injection, the
slop of the declined trend becomes less. SMB Prod. Well # 1 produces from the Tofte and Tilje Formations
and SMB Inj. Well # 2 and SMB Inj. Well # 3 are gas injectors in the Tofte, Tilje and Are Formations.
Figure 6—Production trend analysis between SMB Prod. Well #1, SMB Inj. Well #3 and SMB Inj. Well #2
Another approach for understanding if the production wells are affected by reducing or increasing gas
injection, is the analysis of the cross plot of well gas production rate versus well cumulative gas production.
This is shown for SMB Prod. Well #2 and SMS Prod. Well #2, as an example, in Figure 7. The production
SPE-191348-MS 9
from SMB Prod. Well #2 is enhanced due to pressure support and vaporization after resumption of the gas
injection in Smørbukk field and production from SMS Prod. Well #2 is decreased more severely due to
reduced gas injection in the Garn Formation of Smørbukk Sør field.
Figure 7—Decline curve analysis of SMB Prod. Well # 2 and SMS Prod. Well # 2. Blue curve
shows the production when gas is only injected from Åsgard A into Smørbukk Sør field and
the red curves when Åsgard A gas injection is split both in Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields
The tracer analysis provides an understanding of communication between injectors and producers and
is a good tool to estimate how long does the tracer (and injected gas) needs for the breakthrough; however
tracer analysis in Åsgard is quite challenging since the produced gas containing all types of tracers is re-
injected again. For example the used tracer for a specific formation and a well in Smørbukk field will be
observed in some wells in Smørbukk Sør field or the used tracer for Ile and Tilje injector will be detected in
Garn producers. Through interpretation and filtering of recycled tracers based on tracer concentration are
necessary prior to establishing the injector and producer communication maps as it is shown in Figure 8.
10 SPE-191348-MS
Figure 8—Tracer communications for Smørbukk Sør and Smørbukk fields
Eclipse E100 Reservoir coupled (RC) model is used to investigate the effect of reduced gas transfer from
Åsgard A to Åsgard B, for injection into Smørbukk field or when gas injection into Smørbukk Sør field is
reduced and the gas instead is injected into Smørbukk field. Figure 9 shows the simulated results for delta
cumulative Åsgard sales gas and delta cumulative Åsgard produced oil, where 1 M Sm3/day gas from gas
transfer from Åsgard A to Åsgard B is reduced and instead is injected into Smørbukk field. Figure 10 shows
the simulated results for delta cumulative Åsgard sales gas and Åsgard produced oil, where 6 M Sm3/day
SPE-191348-MS 11
from Smørbukk Sør gas injection is reduced and instead is injected into Smørbukk field. When gas transfer is
reduced for injection into Smørbukk field; the sales gas reduces for a period until injectors will be converted
to producers and the injected gas produced partially back. For this case, the delta cumulative Åsgard oil
recovery is noticeable (~ 0.4 M Sm3); however, this scenario may not be economically feasible, depending
on oil and gas prices, due to negative sales gas and negative cash flow for the first coming years. When gas
injection into Smørbukk Sør field is reduced and, and the gas instead is injected into Smørbukk field, both
delta cumulative Åsgard sales gas and delta cumulative Åsgard produced oil are increasing over coming
years. The increased delta oil recovery from Smørbukk field due to gas injection compensates the reduced
oil recovery for Smørbukk Sør field due to reduced gas injection; hence delta cumulative oil recovery for
the Åsgard unit is positive (~ 0.15 M Sm3). The delta cumulative Åsgard oil for the second scenario is
obviously lower than the first mentioned scenario. Injecting gas into Smørbukk field reduces Åsgard A gas
availability and the sales gas from Åsgard B increases. That is due to the fact that part of injected gas in
Smørbukk field produces through Smørbukk producers via Åsgard B.
Figure 9—Simulated results for Åsgard delta cumulative sales gas and delta cumulative produced oil, when 1 M
Sm3/day gas from gas transfer from Åsgard A to Åsgard B is reduced and instead is injected into Smørbukk field
12 SPE-191348-MS
Figure 10—Simulated results for Åsgard delta cumulative sales gas and delta cumulative produced oil, when 6 M
Sm3/day gas from gas injection into Smørbukk Sør field is reduced and instead is injected into Smørbukk field
In order to estimate the gas injection efficiency of Smørbukk field over Smørbukk Sør field and to find
optimum injection rate, delta cumulative produced oil due to increased gas injection into Smørbukk field and
reduced gas injection into Smørbukk Sør field at different injection rates is simulated using Eclipse E100
reservoir coupled model in Figure 11a and compared with Eclipse E300 composition model for verification
in Figure 11b. E100 black oil reservoir model contains two hydrocarbon phases at separator and reservoir
conditions: oil and gas; hence it is a simplified model with lower computational time and less complexity
compared to E300 compositional reservoir which contains hydrocarbon components. For capturing the
vaporization effect by utlizing black oil model more accurately, VAPPARS keyword in Eclipse (Eclipse
reference manual, version 2014.2) is used and the uncertainty analysis is implemented to match the results
of black oil and compositional models. The second parameter (varies between 0 and 1) of this keyword
determines the tendency of oil to get heavier during gas injection, since the lighter components are already
vaporized by injected gas (Eclipse reference manual, version 2014.2). Residual oil becomes heavier and
vaporization is limited by assigning the larger value for this parameter. In fact, we have seen that for black
oil models, the residual oil in gas flooded area is close to zero without using VAPPARS keyword even
when the residual oil in presence of gas (Srog) is set larger than zero for relative permeability curves; hence
the black oil model without VAPPARS keyword overpredicts gas injection efficiency. Fevang et al. (2000)
documented also that a black-oil model may over-predict oil production for high-pressure gas injection due
to over-estimated oil vaporization.
Figure 11 shows that the gas injection efficiency of Smørbukk field (0.17 M Sm3 produced oil per G Sm3
injected gas) is almost two times of the gas injection efficiency of Smørbukk Sør field (0.08 M Sm3 produced
oil per G Sm3 injected gas) and the optimum gas injection rate is 6 M Sm3/day since the gas injection
efficiency curve for Smørbukk field starts to be flattened out for the injection rates more than 6 M Sm3/day.
By injecting gas in Smørbukk Sør field and producing it back at Åsgard A, gas is re-circulated (Figure 2).
Gas recirculation increases the lifetime of producers by vaporizing more cpndensate and mitigating water
coning, but will postpone the gas export from Åsgard B. Increasing the injection rate for Smørbukk injectors
will lead to increase the gas export from Åsgard B but will not increase the injection efficiency, necessarily.
Thermodynamic phase behavior analysis of reservoir fluid and injected gas applying ternary diagram is
another useful approach to understand gas injection mechanism and optimize drainage strategy during gas
injection based EOR processes. Figure 12 shows the ternary diagrams plotted by PVTi module of Eclipse for
Garn reservoir oil and Åsgard A injection gas at different reservoir pressures and reservoir temperature (141
°C). The figure shows that as reservoir pressure decreases from 300 bar to 220 bar and finally to 200 bar,
SPE-191348-MS 13
the phase diagram expands and the gas injection mechanism changed from first contact miscible at 300 bar
(where the connecting line between the reservoir oil and injected gas is in one phase region) to near critical
miscible at 220 bar (where the connecting line between the reservoir oil and injected gas is tangent to the
two phase envelope) and finally to immiscible at 200 bar (where the connecting line between the reservoir
oil and injected gas crosses the two phase region). For any reservoir pressure below 220 bar, the injected gas
will not be miscible with the Garn reservoir oil and the conversion of injector to producer (blowdown phase)
might be considered. Hoier et al. (2004) investigated miscible gas injection for Smørbukk Sør fluid and
reported for such an undersaturated gas-oil system with compositional grading, gravity stable gas injection
will result to miscible displacement if pressure is above the saturation pressure of GOC fluid (Hoier et al.,
2004). If the pressure is lower than the saturation pressure, the gas evolves from downstream reservoir oil;
hence MMP changes. Above the GOC, vaporizing or vaporizing/condensing drive mechanisms may occur
(Hoier et al., 2004).
Gas injection in Smørbukk and Smørbukk fields reduces also the risk of condensate blockage due to
increasing the pressure; hence the productivity index (PI) reduces less. Postponing condensate blockage
during condensate field lifetime is of great interest in reservoir management, since it leads to lower recovery
and considerable operational cost to restore the productivity index. Settari et al. (1996) investigated the
role of condensate blockage on productivity index for Smørbukk field and showed proppant fracturing
can restore the productivity index loss due to condensate blockage, depending on reservoir heterogeneity,
fracture length and conductivity. They reported up to 50%-70% restoring of productivity index (PI) for low
permeability layers and even more than 100% increase of productivity index (PI) for high permeability
layers. However, the proposed fracturing process increases the operational cost of production and it is
desired to postpone the cost by establishing proper drainage strategy.
14 SPE-191348-MS
Figure 11—a) Gas injection efficiency for Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields and b) comparison of estimated gas
injection efficiency for Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields with black and compositional reservoir simulation models
SPE-191348-MS 15
Figure 12—Ternary phase behavior diagrams for Åsgard A injected gas and the Garn reservoir fluid at
isothermal condition (reservoir temperature= 141 °C) and different reservoir pressures at 300, 220 and 200 bar
Figure 13 shows the predicted reservoir pressure development of different regions of Garn Formation
in Smørbukk Sør field over time for one of the simulation sensitivities compared to horizontal minimum
miscibility threshold (P= 220 bar shown by solid red line). The average Garn reservoir pressure (shown by
dashed red line) is predicted to be lower than 220 bar at late 2019, for this sensitivity; hence the gas injection
will be immiscible beyond that time, considering phase behavior of injection gas and the reservoir oil shown
by Figure 12. Late 2019, might be considered as a time for field blowdown based on this simple PVT study.
Other parameters also have to be investigated for field blowdown optimization in addition to phase behavior
such as expected market conditions to sell oil and gas, economy, operational and infrastructure limitations,
production capacities and risk of sand production during conversion of injectors to producers. Time of field
blowdown phase should not be set at the early stage of field development and instead should be updated
dynamically during drainage strategy study.
16 SPE-191348-MS
Figure 13—Predicted reservoir pressure development for different regions of the Garn
Formation in Smørbukk Sør field for one of the simulation sensitivities over time compared
to horizontal minimum miscibility threshold (P= 220 bar, shown by solid red line).
Conclusion
Optimizing drainage strategy for mature and complex reservoirs is a challenge. This work combines
production decline curve analysis, tracer data interpretation as well as standalone and reservoir coupled
simulation models for drainage strategy of Smørbukk and Smørbukk Sør fields in the Norwegian Sea.
Gas injection efficiency (GIF) factor is estimated both at well and field levels to establish optimal gas
injection strategy. The gas injection efficiency decreases over time. Ternary phase behavior diagrams are
also constructed to understand gas injection mechanism and estimate the optimum time for field blowdown
phase combined with predicted reservoir pressure development over time.
The results showed that the main recovery mechanism of gas injection in Smørbukk Sør and Smørbukk
fields is pressure support and oil/condensate vaporization. The gas injection mitigates water coning from
aquifer for Smørbukk Sør wells since the producers are horizontal or highly deviated at top of the oil-
water contact. Gas recirculation in Smørbukk Sør injectors increases the lifetime of producers but will
postpone the gas export. Increasing the gas injection rate in Smørbukk field enhances gas export at almost
similar injection efficiency. Gas- oil-ratio development of producers, gas injection efficiency (GIF), well to
well tracer communication and produced water-gas ratio development are the key factors for the reservoir
management of a field with gas injection as one of the recovery mechanisms in addition to the robust
evaluation of expected market for oil and gas. Reservoir segments with lower produced gas-oil ratio and
higher water-gas ratio development have shown the most favorable locations for gas injection. Injection
in wells with higher GIF and higher injectivity index, also reduces the consumed energy by injection
compressors per improved produced oil volume; hence energy efficiency increases and the gas emission
is reduced at similar oil recovery.
Predicting accurate water development (which strongly affects the lifetime of Smørbukk Sør producers)
by reservoir simulation model is the main challenge. The main uncertain parameter is communication
between different field regions across the faults. Detailed uncertainty analysis and ensemble based
simulation study are needed for more in-depth understanding.
SPE-191348-MS 17
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Åsgard unit owners; Statoil ASA, Petoro AS, ENI Norge AS, TOTAL
Exploration and Production Norge AS and ExxonMobil Exploration and Production Norway AS for
permission to publish this paper.
Nomenclature
GOR : Gas Oil Ratio
GOC : Gas Oil Contact
GIF : Gas Injection Efficiency Factor
MMP : Minimum Miscibility Pressure
SMS : Smørbukk Sør
SMB : Smørbukk
References
Alipour Tabrizy, V., 2012. Investigated Miscible CO2 Flooding for Enhancing Oil Recovery in Wettability Altered Chalk
and Sandstone Rocks, University of Stavanger (UiS), Ph.D. Thesis, ISBN: 978-82-7644-492-6, Ph.D. Thesis UiS, no.
162.
Alvarado, V., Manrique, E., 2010. Enhanced Oil Recovery: An Update Review. Energies. 3, 1529-1575.
Clark, R. A.,Jr., Ludolph, B., 2003. Voidage Replacement Ratio Calculations in Retrograde Condensate to Volatile Oil
Reservoirs Undergoing EOR Processes, SPE 84359 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Colorado, USA.
Danesh, A., 1998. PVT and Phase Behavior of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids. Elsevier Science B.V., The Netherlands.
Eclipse reference manual, Schlumberger, version 2014.2.
Fevang, Ø., Sing, K., Whitson C. H., 2000. Guidelines for Choosing Compositional and Black-Oil Models for Volatile
Oil and Gas Condensate Reservoirs SPE 63087 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held
in Dallas, Texas, USA.
Fjellanger. J. P., Boen, F., Ronning, K. J., Sabo, A., Haaland A. N., 2006. Seismic Mapping and Monitoring for Well
Optimization, OTC 18236 presented at Offshore Technology Conference, Texas, USA.
Haaland, S., Fortmuller, C. G., Pollen T. Roosmalen, J. J. V., 1996. AÅsgard: Simultaneous Development of an Oil and
Gas Cluster in the Norwegian Sea, SPE-36876 presented at European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy.
Hinderaker L., Njaa, S., 2010. Utilization of Associated Petroleum Gas (APG) - The Norwegian Experience, SPE 136316
presented at SPE Russian oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia.
Hoier, L., Cheng, N., Whitson C. H., 2004. Miscible Gas Injection in Undersaturated Gas-Oil System. SPE 90379
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, USA.
Johns, R.T., Sah, P., Subramanian, S., 2000. Effect of Gas Enrichment above the MME on Oil Recovery in Enriched-Gas
Floods, SPE J. 3, 331-338.
Madsen, T., Abtahi, M., 2005. Handling the Oil Zone on Troll, OTC 17109 presented at Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, USA.
Muggeridge, A., Cockin, A., Webb, K., Frampton, H., Collins, I., Moulds, T., Salino P., 2014. Recovery rates, enhanced
oil recovery and technological limits. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120320.
NPD (Norwegian Petroleum Directory)
http://factpages.npd.no/FactPages/default.aspx?nav1=field&nav2=PageView%7CAll&nav3=43765.
Pedersen, C., Thibeau, S., 2003. Smørbukk Field: Fluid Modeling and Upscaling Issues to Simulate the Gas Cycling
Process in Lower Tilje Formation, SPE 83955 present at Offshore European SPE conference, Aberdeen, UK.
Razak, W., Daud, W., Faisal, A. H. Carigali, S. D. Zakaria, N. A., 2009. Multi Component Mass Transfer in
Multiple Contact Miscibility Test; Forward and Backward Method. SPE 125219 presented at SPE/EAGE Reservoir
Characterization and Simulation Conference. Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Rostami, B., Kharrat, R., Pooladi-Darvish M., and Ghotbi, C., 2010. Identification of Fluid Dynamics in Forced Gravity
Drainage Using Dimensionless Groups, Transport in Porous Media, Volume 83, Issue 3, pp 725-740.
Settari, A., Bachman, R. C., Hovem, K. A., Paulsen, S. G. 1996. Productivity of fractured gas condensate wells: a case
study of the Smørbukk field. SPE 35604 presented at gas technology symposium in Calgary, Canada, later published
in SPE Reservoir Engineering.
Sognesand S., 1997. Reservoir Management of the Oseberg Field During Eight Years’ Production, SPE 38555 presented
at Offshore European SPE conference, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
18 SPE-191348-MS
Thibeau, S., 2002. Smørbukk filed: impact of small scale heterogeneity on gas cycling performance. SPE 75229 presented
at SPE/DOE improved oil recovery symposium held in Oklahoma, USA.
Viken, V., Hovde, E., Sletfjerding E., 2007. Light well intervention in Åsgard field (Norway) as a tool for improved
reservoir management. SPE 109281 at Offshore European SPE conference, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Zick, A., 1986. Combined Condensing Vaporizing Mechanisms in the Displacement of Oil by Enriched Gases. SPE 15493
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, USA.

Spe 191348 Ms

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

Spe 191348 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-191348-MS

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Background of Åsgard Drainage Strategy and Challenge Statement

Results and Discussions

Figure 8—Tracer communications for Smørbukk Sør and Smørbukk fields

You might also like