SPE 80437
Integrated Reservoir Simulation Studies to Optimize Recovery from a
Carbonate Reservoir
Ridha B.C. Gharbi, SPE, Kuwait University
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 15-17 April 2003.
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 as
presented, have not been reviewed by the 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 review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
__________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
A three-dimensional finite-difference reservoir simulator,
integrated in an EOR expert system, has been used to
determine the reservoir management and production strategies
to optimize the oil recovery from a carbonate reservoir. The
reservoir is a candidate for an EOR process or otherwise
subject to abandonment. After screening the reservoir for an
appropriate EOR process on the basis of its properties, it was
determined that miscible carbon-dioxide injection is the most
suitable process. The management strategies involved
studying different design parameters to maximize the project
profitability. The injection techniques that were tested in this
study include: (1) water-alternating-gas (WAG),
(2) simultaneous water-alternating-gas (SWAG) injection, and
(3) gas injection in the bottom of the reservoir with water
injection in the reservoir top. All simulation runs were
conducted using permeability fields that have been
conditioned with core data taken from wells in the field.
Specific strategy that was used includes the use of horizontal
injectors in conjunction with vertical producers. This well
configuration has been shown to yield the best oil recovery
compared to other well configurations. Simulation results
show that the most economical method to produce this
reservoir was to simultaneously inject water at the reservoir
top and gas at the reservoir bottom. This production strategy
has resulted in better sweep efficiency and therefore high oil
recovery and good economics.
Introduction
The goal of this study was to investigate several production
strategies in order to optimize the recovery from a carbonate
reservoir. In order to accomplish this goal, four different
phases were conducted. The first phase (phase A) consisted
of performing detailed geologic analysis and characterization
of the reservoir rock properties. The second phase (phase B)
involved characterizing fluid properties, estimating original
oil-in-place and the remaining reserves. Results from the two
first phases were then transferred to a three-dimensional
reservoir simulation model in order to history match the
production data (phase C). Finally, the constructed reservoir
model was used to test different reservoir management and
production techniques to determine the most efficient method
and design parameters to economically optimize the oil
recovery from this reservoir (phase D).
The reservoir, discovered in 1972, produces a 29oAPI
crude oil at an average depth of about 6500 ft with an average
formation thickness of 360 ft above the original oil-water
contact. Based on material balance calculations, the reservoir
has an original oil in place estimated as 1314 MMstb.
Expansion drive was the primary recovery mechanism for the
initially undersaturated crude oil accumulation with a slightly
active aquifer present. Waterflood operations to stabilize the
reservoir pressure started in the early 1980's. Before the
initiation of water injections, the reservoir consisted of 42
vertical producers. Typical well spacing is 19.4 acres. The
properties of the reservoir are summarized in Table 1.
With waterflood approaches maturity, new management
strategies and recovery methods are required in order to
optimize the future production from this reservoir.
Screening this reservoir for an appropriate EOR method
indicated that miscible carbon-dioxide flooding is the most
suitable process. The EOR selection procedure was
performed using an expert system developed for such
applications.1 Preliminary small scale simulation models have
shown a significant increase in the oil recovery obtained from
miscible carbon-dioxide flooding by reducing the oil
saturation to less than 10%. The purpose of this paper is to
define the new management and production strategies through
integrated reservoir simulation studies in order to optimize the
economic returns from the selected recovery method.
Geology
The reservoir unit, typical of Middle Eastern carbonate
reservoirs, is primarily a structural trap (domal shape)
measuring about 18 km along the x-axis and 9 km along the y-
axis and covers some 134 km2. It consists of alternating
sedimentary cycles of porous limestone intervals interbedded
with dolomitic streaks formed during the Late Paleocene
period with porosities ranging up to 40%. Much of the
porosity is secondary and developed soon after deposition
during exposure to fresh waters. Unconformities and related
diagenetic processes play an important role. The structure is
2 SPE 80437
dipping gently east-northward with regular dips in the order of
1o to 2o. A thick anhydrite layer covers the reservoir top
forming an excellent seal. Earlier geological model
considered this reservoir as a five homogeneous layers with
very good lateral and vertical continuity. With the availability
of 3D seismic, mineral based log analysis, new geological
model was built. The new model consisted of 44 sedimentary
units. Some units are regionally separated by very thin low
porosity limestone with few shales in the reservoir. Small
faults have been revealed by the seismic interpretation. This
pattern suggests an origin mainly related to compressive
stress. The revealed fault planes are dipping from 75o to 90o.
Only 10 faults have been correlated at the top of the reservoir.
Reservoir tops, faults and thickness from the geological model
were taken into account in the reservoir numerical model.
Petrophysical Properties
The reservoir petrophysical properties were determined from
several sources including special core data, pressure tests, and
well log analysis. A petrophysical database was built that
includes SP, GR, caliper, resistivity and porosity curves, for
the 42 wells drilled on a foot-by-foot basis from 50 ft above
down to 50 below the reservoir. This is a key step in the
process of building a comprehensive geologic model.
Conventional core analysis, available for some wells have
been also loaded in the database. The reservoir geology was
based on a detailed reservoir description in terms of
sedimentology with lithofacies definition, depositional and
diagenetic environment interpretation and analysis of
porosity-permeability properties. The lithofacies
classification was based on the Dunham classification for
carbonate rocks.2 A geological database was prepared to
produce a series of stratigraphic and structural cross-sections,
and isopach and structural maps.
When sonic logs are available, lithology could be defined
more accurately. Sonic logs were available for thirty of these
wells. For wells with no sonic logs available, a complex
lithology method has been used as a substitute for the
multimineral analysis. The porosity has been determined from
either (1) multimineral analysis based on the neutron, density
and Sonic logs, (2) complex lithology analysis based on
neutron-density cross plots, (3) sonic logs when the neutron-
density logs did not give good results, and (4) density logs.
Comparison of the effective, shale free porosity traces from
different wells show that the zones of porosity are random.
Average porosity of the pay zone ranged from 17 to
40 percent. Sensitivity analysis of the cumulated hydrocarbon
pore thickness to several cut-off values in porosity and water
saturation was performed. Cut-off values of 10% for porosity
and 70% for water saturation were selected.
A general cross plot from all porosity-permeability (k-φ)
core data shows very large scattering and consequently a
single relationship between porosity and permeability was not
achievable. An attempt was made to determine improved
porosity-permeability relationships according to the facies
definition and distribution though the wells. The following
relationships were determined for different ranges of the
reservoir depth. The 10 main lithofacies were grouped in 4
lithotypes according to the following k-φ relationships:
Range of depth (ft)
Log (k) = 0.2 φ – 2.01 6500 – 6665
Log (k) = 0.2 φ – 2.90 6665 – 6737
Log (k) = 0.224 φ – 2.03 6737 - 6801
Log (k) = 0.24 φ – 4.80 6801 - 6860
Since the perm to porosity transforms were questionable in
many parts of the reservoir, a decision was made not to use
these k-φ relationships to develop the reservoir permeability
field. Instead, the permeability field will be generated
geostatistically after being conditioned from core data. The
oil saturation model was constructed from the porosity model
and the height above the original oil-water contact.
The permeability values measured from core taken from
one well show extreme variation down the length of the core.
The large changes in permeability over section of the core
show the heterogeneous nature of the reservoir. Fig. 1 shows
the variation of porosity and water saturation vs. depth for a
particular well, while Fig. 2 shows the variation of horizontal
permeability with depth.
The cementation factor (m) and the saturation exponent
(n) were determined based on wells where laboratory data are
available. Based on the technical analysis of these data,
average values of 1.925 and 1.86 are used for m and n,
respectively. The water resistivity (Rw) determined from
several water analyses is 0.015 at 165oF.
Reservoir Engineering Data
Fluid Properties. In order to fully describe the fluid
properties, a complete analysis of all available PVT data and
fluid production data was performed. The variation of the
fluid properties in the lateral and the vertical directions have
been taken into account. Seven bottom hole samples have
been collected, after well completion, for PVT analysis. The
analysis included the determination of the bubble point
pressure, a differential vaporization, oil viscosity
measurement, and composition of the reservoir fluid. In order
to determine a consistent variation of the oil characteristics
areally and vertically, the fluid properties derived from PVT
analysis were validated with the fluid production data (API,
GOR). The practical PVT properties that are used in the
overall simulation model have been derived from an in-house
equation-of-state (EOS) software based on Peng-Robinson.3
The adjustment parameters used for matching are the
properties of the Heptanes plus (C7+) which include: (1) the
critical temperature and pressure, (2) accentric factor and
molecular weight, and (3) binary interaction coefficient with
methane. There has been no difficulty to obtain a good match,
which gives good confidence level in the PVT analysis.
Observation of the PVT analysis from the different wells
show that the composition is consistent throughout the
reservoir and throughout the production history. Available
measurements on core data indicated that lighter oil is found
toward the top of the reservoir structure. Fig. 3 indicates the
change of the API gravity with depth for all available
measurements on cores. This is in agreement with the results
obtained from the PVT studies that indicated an increase in
the concentration of Heptanes plus with depth. After
considering all possible approaches and taking into account
SPE 80437
the effects of PVT description on simulation results, it was
decided that the viscosity will be calculated based on GOR
and stock tank API according to published correlations.4-5
The purpose will be to obtain values as reliable as possible to
characterize the lower part of the reservoir where no
measurements are available. The method from Chew and
Connally was found to yield better results (Ref. 4). Figs. 4
and 5 show the changes in oil viscosity and GOR with the
reservoir depth, respectively. The water compressibility is
3.0x10-6 psi-1, and the oil formation volume factor is
1.224 stock-tank barrels per reservoir barrel.
The pressure data was available from the shut-in-tubing
pressure and bottom-hole pressure measurements.
Observations of the pressure decline for all the wells versus
time showed similar trend over the years of production. The
initial static reservoir pressure estimated from Horner build-up
analysis was 4116 psia. This value was in agreement with
other analysis done on several other wells.
Rock Properties. All necessary data for rock properties were
collected. These include results from several build-up
measurements over 25 wells that were incorporated into the
build-up database. An MDH plot was constructed for each
well with the assumption that the wells were produced at a
constant rate before shut-in. Permeability was calculated from
the upper reservoir portion of the curve. Producing rate
before shut-in was estimated from production data prior to the
test. Results obtained from interpretation of these tests show
that the ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability (kv/kh) is in
the order of 0.15. The skin factor was in agreement with
expected values in acidized carbonates with an average value
of -2. The results also show that the arithmetic average of
core-derived permeabilities is in good agreement with the
horizontal permeability derived from build-up tests, while the
geometric average of the core permeabilities is consistent with
the vertical permeability from build-up tests. The arithmetic
average of the permeability was selected to generate the
permeability maps.
The capillary pressure data to be used in each reservoir
layer is derived using an average equivalent J-function
obtained from experimental data.6 These curves were then
S w − S wi
normalized with a normalized water saturation to
1 − S wi
yield a single trend which will be used as a normalized
capillary pressure curve in the model. All available relative
permeability data were collected and used to define an average
normalized relative permeability curve shown in Fig. 6. This
curve will be used as a basis for the preliminary two-
dimensional model to derive the pseudo-relative permeability
functions used in the full field model.
Volumetric Reserve Estimates. Using volumetric methods,
the original oil-in-place in the reservoir was in good
agreement with that obtained from material balance
calculation (i.e. 1314 MMstb). The term (φ * h * (1 − S wi ))
3
used in the calculation was estimated from log analysis of
wells which have at least neutron, density and resistivity logs
in order to obtain the most accurate values of porosity and
saturation. A formation composite volume factor at initial
bottom pressure of 1.162 rbbl/stb was used.
Two-Dimensional Modeling
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of the 2-D preliminary
simulation runs is to derive the pseudo-functions that will be
used in the full field model. The original detailed cross-
sectional geological model suggested that there are 44 layers
which were very fine to be considered for full field modeling.
Rather than averaging these layers to reduce the number and
hence loose the detail, all the data is incorporated into a
detailed two-dimensional cross sectional model. The model
was validated with history matching the well's performance
and consequently used to generate the pseudo-relative
permeabilities (pseudos) and the capillary pressure functions
for use in the well cells of the full field model. The routine
monitoring of the well production data (rates, gas-oil-ratios,
water cuts, and pressure) provides good data for
history matching.
In general, there are two basic methods for generating
pseudo-functions: (1) static and (2) dynamic.7-10 The static
pseudos are derived manually by averaging the rock relative
permeability curves.11 This results in pseudos that are derived
independently of the reservoir model and therefore must be re-
incorporated into the model. The dynamic model uses the
results from the fine model (i.e. actual pressure behavior and
the flow patterns) to derive the pseudos for each grid in the
coarse model. As a consequence, a large number of pseudo
curves are generated which will be difficult to incorporate in a
full field model. Therefore, an alternative method was used in
order to reduce the number of curves and at the same time
maintaining agreement with fine grid model. The pore-
volume weighted approach is an alternative simple method
which takes into accounts the saturation effects across the
coarse grid but ignores the pressure effects.12 This method
was ultimately selected to derive the pseudo-functions. The
performance of the coarse grid model must be in good
agreement with that of the fine grid model to confirm the
validity of the derived pseudo-functions.
During the cross-sectional modeling, two versions are
built: (1) fine grid model, based on the detailed geologic
layering of 44 layers, and (2) coarse grid model, with the same
layering that will be used in the full field model (12 layers). A
conventional local grid refinement was used to correctly
model near well bore effects. This resulted in x-y-z grid of
65x1x44 for the fine grid model and 65x1x12 grid for the
coarse model. Fig. 7 shows the pseudo-relative permeability
curves that yielded acceptable match for individual well
behavior and validated over a long-term prediction. Despite
some very minor differences between wells, an average
multiplying factor of 1.57 was applied to the horizontal
permeability values to match the fluid rates and the pressure
behavior.
4 SPE 80437
Full Field Modeling
Model Description. A full field simulation model was
created to estimate the residual oil saturations from water
flooding and hence provide an input for the CO2 flood. The 3-
D geologic model resulted in an improved description of the
reservoir structure. The top of structure map and the total
thickness maps per layer are directly taken from the geological
model. The net to gross maps based on the porosity cut-off at
10% have been derived for each geological layer and
multiplied by the total thickness maps to generate the net
effective thickness maps for the simulation model. To take
into account the water saturation cut-off, the pore volume of
the lower layers is corrected by a factor based on the actual
volume of the geological model computed by layer and by
area. The porosities are directly taken from the geological
maps.
The horizontal permeability maps were generated
geostatistically after being conditioned using core data taken
from wells. This is commonly known as conditional
simulations. The steps involved in conditional simulations are
given in many references.13-14 The core permeabilities from
these wells are approximately log-normally distributed with a
Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of 0.75.15 The vertical correlation
length of the horizontal permeability obtained from the
analysis of the core data is about 65 ft. The correlation
lengths along the bedding planes were 1700 ft in both x- and
y-directions. The generated permeability values ranges from 3
to 18762 md and the field contains continuous high permeable
streak across the middle of the reservoir. Maps of vertical to
horizontal permeability ratio have been derived per layer from
the values of harmonic and arithmetic means at wells and have
been multiplied by the maps of horizontal permeability to
generate the input vertical permeability maps. An average
value of 0.15 for the vertical to horizontal permeability ratio
was obtained.
The x-y-z model grid used is 65x48x12 that includes all
the wells, resulting in a total number of cells used of 37440
grid blocks with 84 subgrids corresponding to local
refinement. The number of active cells is 32902.
History Matching. The history matching of this reservoir
consisted of matching the overall pressure behavior and the
individual well’s production and injection data, which include
the bottom-hole and tubing head pressures,
production/injection rates, gas-oil-ratios, and water cuts.
Historical injection, production, and perforation data for
individual wells were available for almost the entire reservoir
history. The full-field model was run from 1972 through 1999
to match history.
Initially, an attempt was made to history match the
pressure by running the model in reservoir voidage control.
That is, the model attempts to produce at the given oil, water
and gas rates. If these can not be met, then the simulator
produces another phase based on the mobility ratios in the
producing grid block, while maintaining the total reservoir
voidage. After the pressure behavior were matched, the
model was run on oil rate control. Parameters were then
systematically adjusted until an acceptable match in both the
pressure behavior and fluid production was achieved. The
performance of individual wells was evaluated to assess the
matching of oil and water production rates and
breakthrough times.
Initial simulation results indicated a too strong pressure
drop in many wells during the transient period at the start of
production, indicating that improved connections in the well
area are required to match the model. This was consistent
with what was observed in the cross-sectional study. The
parameters adjusted are those usually adjusted in model
matching: aquifer size, aquifer connection to model,
connections between cells, relative permeability curves and
corresponding end points, and depth-viscosity curves.
Several simulation runs both cross-sectional and full field,
have shown that a uniform underlying aquifer can match the
pressure. The final aquifer size is 7501 millions of barrels (in-
situ conditions). More than fifteen simulation runs were
necessary to obtain an acceptable match. Each of these runs
required around 34 CPU hours on a SUN Ultra 80
workstation. Figs. 8 and 9 present typical curves for oil rate
and pressure match, respectively. The match of the reservoir
pressure presented in Fig. 9 shows good confidence in the
total reservoir fluid volumes and reservoir permeability field.
The difference between the simulated and the actual pressures
was generally less than 100 psia. The matches of the
cumulative oil rate and water cut were also acceptable.
Results show that the relative permeability curves derived in
the two-dimensional model was satisfying for the full field
history modeling. No additional adjustments in the relative
permeability curves were necessary. The same average
multiplying factor of 1.57 was applied to the horizontal
permeability values to match the fluid rates and the pressure
behavior.
Reservoir Management Strategies
The history match discussed in the previous section, is used as
the initial condition to develop the reservoir management
strategies in order to economically optimize the remaining oil
reserves. The management strategies involved two tasks: (1)
determining a suitable EOR process for this reservoir, and (2)
investigating several development and design parameters (e.g.
use of horizontal wells, infill drilling…) to optimize the oil
recovery. Both of these tasks were accomplished with the
help of an expert system developed for such applications.1,16
On the basis of the reservoir characteristics, the
consultation from the expert system yielded that carbon-
dioxide (CO2) flooding was the most suitable EOR process for
this reservoir. The reservoir pressure is well above the
minimum miscibility pressure (MMP). The MMP is estimated
to be 1675 psia. The value of MMP was assumed constant
during the CO2 flood. Variation of MMP with vapor
composition was not considered in this study.
If CO2 is injected alone, the unfavorable gas-oil mobility
ratio will often result in unstable displacements and
consequently early breakthrough and poor sweep efficiency.
The water-alternating-gas (WAG) process is used as an
alternative method, which has been successful for improving
oil recovery in many fields around the world. In this method,
gas and water are injected as alternate slugs by cycles in a
fixed ratio (termed WAG ratio). The injection of gas and
water could also be simultaneous (i.e. SWAG injection). A
slug of solvent followed by a slug of water is referred to as
WAG cycle. The solvent slug size per WAG cycle indicates
SPE 80437 5

the amount of solvent slug in pore volumes in a WAG cycle. channeling was minimized as the CO2 slug size per WAG
For SWAG injection, this amount is zero. In operations, a cycle is decreased. Therefore, minimizing the slug size per
total slug size of gas (i.e. total amount of gas required for the WAG cycle will maximize profitability of solvent floods.
project) is injected in WAG process and then displaced by Fig. 12 shows the variation of NPV with the total slug
only water. The SWAG injection has been suggested as a size for the optimum WAG ratio of 1. The highest average
means to provide better mobility control of gas than in value of NPV obtained from the simulations of 15 realizations
WAG injection. corresponds to a design with a total CO2 slug size of 30% PV.
To accomplish task (2) of the reservoir management Therefore, the optimum design for this reservoir if only WAG
strategies, a number of expensive simulation runs were and SWAG are considered will be a SWAG design with a
needed. Sensitivities of several design parameters on the oil total CO2 slug size of 30% PV. It should be noted that the
recovery was investigated in order to economically optimize
uncertainties in NPV from different permeability realizations
the design of the selected EOR process. Such parameters
is small for slug size per WAG cycle (Fig. 10) compared to
included the location of the injection wells, additional infill
other design parameters, namely WAG ratio and total slug
drilling, optimum total slug, optimum slug size per WAG
size (Figs 11 and 12).
cycle, and optimum WAG ratio. The answer to these issues is
the key to economically apply the selected EOR process. The
Alternative Gas-Water Injection Method. The
optimization process reported in a previous paper was used.16
determination of the reservoir management strategies was
The process combines an economic model using the
further carried out to include an alternative gas-water injection
discounted-cash-flow method of economic analysis. Readers
method in addition to the methods studied above (i.e. WAG
interested in additional details on the optimization process or
and SWAG). The method involves injecting water at the top
the economic model should consult Ref. 16.
of the reservoir, while injecting gas at the bottom of the
To reduce the simulation costs, all the runs performed
reservoir. With the improvement in drilling and completion
during the optimization process was carried out using a
technologies during the last few years, this method of
combination of horizontal injectors with vertical producers.
injection can be achieved. Gas injected at the reservoir
This well combination was found to improve the sweep
bottom is expected to create a gravity override, whereas water
efficiency and the project life of miscible and immiscible EOR
injected at the top of the reservoir will create a gravity under-
processes.17-19 The horizontal injectors were placed 120 ft
ride. It is expected that the two displacement fronts combined
below the top of the reservoir.
will increase the sweep efficiency and thus the oil recovery.
The strategy involved in drilling was to drill new wells in
Simulations were carried out with gas injected
all the areas of the reservoir where there was mobile oil. From
horizontally 50 ft above the bottom of the reservoir, whereas
the saturation maps obtained from the history match, the
water is injected horizontally 50 ft below the top of the
optimal development required drilling four infill injection
reservoir. The additional cost arising from the use of this
wells. The cost of additional drilling and inverting vertical
injection method is included in the economic
wells to horizontal wells is included in the economic
optimization process.
optimization analysis. Table 2 lists the economic variables
The optimum design was determined by keeping the
used in this study.
water injection rate constant while varying the gas injection
The economic optimization process was carried out by
rate. The result was an optimum gas injection rate for a given
systematically repeating simulation runs until optimum design
water injection rate. The optimization process is then repeated
parameters are achieved (i.e. optimum total slug, optimum
for different water injection rate using the optimum gas
slug size per WAG cycle, and the optimum WAG ratio).
injection rate until an optimum water injection rate was also
Table 3 summarizes the results of this economic optimization
achieved. The optimal total amount of gas required for the
process. As shown, the optimum design is a SWAG injection
project is taken from the WAG injection (i.e. 30% PV).
(Run 1B-09) with a net-present-value (NPV) of $2.59 billion.
Several runs were performed using the injection scenario
The listed NPV for each design corresponds to an average
described above in order to optimize the remaining oil
value obtained from 15 simulations runs, each with a different
recovery. Fig. 13 shows the variation of the project
realization of the reservoir permeability field. The optimum
profitability with gas injection rate. As shown, the project
design occurred with a total slug size of 30% PV and WAG
profitability varies significantly for different gas injection rate.
ratio of 1.0 with an economic limit of 14 years.
The optimum case has an NPV of $3.06 billion with an IRR of
Fig. 10 shows the variation of NPV with the WAG ratio.
38.21%, which is considered very attractive. The economic
The difference between the two curves in Fig. 10 corresponds
limits for these runs range from 7 to 13 years depending on
to the variation in NPV obtained from 15 different realizations
the injection rate. The optimum case has an economic limit of
of the permeability field. As shown, the highest average NPV
9 years. The project life is relatively short due to the use of
occurred at a WAG ratio of 1.0. Fig. 11 shows the variation horizontal injection separately for gas and water. The gas
of NPV with CO2 slug size per WAG cycle at the optimum injection rate, which resulted in the highest NPV was about
WAG ratio of 1.0. Similar to Fig. 10, Fig. 11 also shows the 6.0% pore volume per year. Under these conditions, a
uncertainties in NPV obtained from the 15 different significant volume of the reservoir reaches low oil saturations,
permeability realizations. The highest NPV was achieved indicating good sweep efficiency. The lowest oil saturations
when the CO2 slug size per WAG cycle is zero (i.e. SWAG). occurred in the higher portions of the reservoir. Therefore,
In this case, SWAG injection has reduced the capillary comparison of results from the different injection strategies
entrapment of the oil. The solvent contacted more oil and suggested that this alternative method of injection (i.e.
6 SPE 80437
simultaneous injection of gas in the bottom of the reservoir
with water in the top) is the most economical strategy for
optimizing the oil recovery from this reservoir.
Using this injection strategy, several additional simulation
runs were performed in order to investigate the effect of crude
oil and CO2 prices on the project profitability. The results
from these simulation runs are shown in Figs 14 and 15,
which represent the variation of NPV with oil prices for CO2
prices of $1.00/Mcf and $1.50/Mcf, respectively. The crude
oil prices ranges from $10.00 to $35.00. The uncertainties
obtained from 15 different realizations of the permeability
field are indicated in both figures. As shown, the profitability
of this project is very sensitive to the prices of both crude oil
and CO2. When the price of CO2 is $1.00/Mcf (Fig. 14), the
project could be profitable even at a crude oil price as low as
$10.00/bbl. For a CO2 price of $1.50/Mcf, the oil price has to
be higher than $14.00/bbl for the project to make a profit.
Conclusions
A full field model has been developed for a carbonate
reservoir and has been used to investigate various reservoir
management and production strategies. The management
strategies examined the project profitability and the economic
limits for different design parameters in order to optimize the
remaining oil recovery from this reservoir. Based on this
study, the following conclusions may be drawn:
1. The detailed data acquisition and modeling of the
reservoir significantly improved our understanding of the
reservoir performance.
2. Consultation from an expert system suggested that
carbon-dioxide (CO2) flooding is the most suitable EOR
process for this reservoir.
3. The history match identified areas for infill injection
wells and oil targets for carbon-dioxide (CO2) flooding.
4. Minimizing the slug size per WAG cycle maximizes the
profits of solvent floods. For this reservoir, the
simultaneous water-alternating-gas (SWAG) injection
yielded better project profitability than water-alternating-
gas (WAG) injection.
5. The full-field simulations show that the most economical
method to produce this reservoir was to inject gas in the
bottom of the reservoir with water injection in the top.
This injection strategy improved significantly the sweep
efficiency, minimized the project life, and consequently
yielded better project profitability than WAG or SWAG
processes.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Kuwait University for providing the
financial support needed for this study, Grant no. EP03/01.
Nomenclature
h : Thickness
k : Permeability
NPV : Net-Present-Value
PV : Pore volume
Sw : Water saturation
S wi : Initial water saturation
φ : Porosity
References
1. Gharbi, R.: "An Expert System for Selecting and
Designing EOR Processes," The Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 1-2, July 2000.
2. Dunham, R.J.: Classification of Carbonate Rocks
According to Depositional Texture, in W.E. Ham, ed.,
Classification of Carbonate Rocks, AAPG Memoir I,
1962, 122-192.
3. Peng, D. and Robinson, D.B.: “A New Two-Constant
Equation of State,” I. & E.C. Fundamentals (1965) 15,
No. 1, 59-64.
4. Chew, J.N., and Connally, C.A.: “Viscosity Correlation
for Gas-Saturated Crude Oils,” Trans. AIME 216,
1959, 23-25.
5. Beggs, H.D., and Robinson, J.R.: “Estimating the
Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems,” JPT 9, 1975, 1140-1.
6. Leverett, M.C.: “Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids,”
Trans AIME 142, 152 (1941).
7. Stiles, W.E.: “Use of Permeability Distribution in Water
Flood Calculations,” Trans AIME (1949), 186-189.
8. Dietz, D.N.: “A Theoretical Approach to the Problem of
Encroaching and By-Passing Edge Water,” Aakad van
Wetenschappen, Amesterdam, Proc. V. 56-B: 83.
9. Hearn, C.L.: “Simulation of Stratified Water Flooding by
Pseudo Relative Permeability Curves,” J. Petrol.
Technol., July 1971, 805-813.
10. Kyte, J.R. and Berry, D.W.: “New Pseudo Functions to
Control Numerical Dispersion, SPEJ, August 1975, 269.
11. Dake, L.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering,
Elsevier Publishing Company, Amesterdam, The
Netherlands (1978).
12. Intera: “Eclipse 100 Simulator Reference Manual,
Ancillary Programs (Pseudo)”.
13. Yang, A.P., Stochastic Heterogeneity and Dispersion,
Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin,
1990.
14. Ravnass, R.D., Strickland, R.F., Lake, L.W., Yang, A.P.,
Malik, M., Prezbindowski, D.R., and Mairs, T.: “Three-
Dimensional Conditional Simulation of Schneider (Buda)
Field, Wood County, Texas,” paper SPE 23970,
presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas
Recovery Conference, Midland, TX, March18-20, 1992)
15. Dykstra, H. and Parsons, R.L.: “The Prediction of Oil
Recovery by Water Flood,” Secondary Recovery of Oil in
the United States, Principles and Practice, 2nd Edition,
American Petroleum Institute, 1950, 160-174
16. Gharbi, R.: "Economic Optimization of EOR Processes
Using Knowledge-Based System: Case Studies," accepted
SPE 80437
for publication, The Journal of Petroleum Science and
Technology, December 2000.
17. Dakhlia, H., Wu, W.J., Lim, M.T., Delshad, M., Pope,
G.A., and Sepehrnoori, K.: “Simulation of surfactant
flooding using horizontal wells,” CIM 95-82, Petrol. Soc.
of CIM 46th Ann. Tech. Meet., Banff, Alberta, May 14-
17, 1995.
18. Gharbi, R., Peters, E.J. and Garrouch, A.: "Effect of
Heterogeneity on the Performance of Immiscible
7
Displacement with Horizontal Wells," The Journal of
Petroleum Science & Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 1& 2,
August 1997.
19. Lim, M.T., Khan, S., Sepehrnoori, K., and Pope, G.A.:
“Simulation of Carbon Dioxide Flooding Using
Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 24929, presented at the 67th
Ann. Tech. Conf. & Exhibition, Washington, DC,
October 4-7, 1992.
8 SPE 80437

TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF RESERVOIR AND FLUID PROPERTIES

Depth 6500 ft
o
Temperature 165 F
Rock type Carbonate
Average porosity 0.22
Average formation thickness 360 ft
o
Oil gravity 29 API
Viscosity 3.12 cp
Average permeability 115 md
Average kv/kh 0.15
Initial static reservoir pressure 4116 psia
Oil formation volume factor 1.224 stb/scf

TABLE 2 - ECONOMIC VARIABLES USED IN THIS STUDY

Oil Price $20.00 / bbl
Operating Cost (excluding gas recycle cost) $0.15 / bbl
Carbon Dioxide recycle cost $0.30 / Mcf
Carbon dioxide cost $1.00 / Mcf
Royalty 11%
Taxes 30%
Inflation Rate 3%
Real Discount Rate 10%

TABLE 3 - RESULT SUMMARY FOR THE ECONOMIC OPTIMIZATION

WAG Slug Size / Total Slug * Economic
NPV
Run # Ratio WAG cycle (%PV) Size (%PV) (10 million $) Limit (yrs)
1C-05 0 1.0 40 230 10
1C-07 1.0 1.0 40 231 11
1C-09 2.0 1.0 40 223 11
1C-10 3.0 1.0 40 212 12
1C-12 4.0 1.0 40 189 13
2C-01 1.0 0 40 253 14
2C-02 1.0 0.25 40 249 13
2C-03 1.0 0.50 40 243 13
2C-05 1.0 1.25 40 216 12
2C-07 1.0 1.5 40 207 11
2C-09 1.0 2.0 40 188 10
2C-11 1.0 2.5 40 163 10
1B-02 1.0 0 5 181 11
1B-05 1.0 0 10 230 11
1B-07 1.0 0 20 239 13
1B-08 1.0 0 25 255 13
1B-09 1.0 0 30 259 14
1B-11 1.0 0 35 251 15
1B-13 1.0 0 50 205 16
*
Average NPV obtained from 15 realizations of permeability fields
SPE 80437 9

Permeability Values (md)

Values (%)
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 20 40 60 80 100
Reservoir
Reservoir0 Top
0
Top
Porosity

60 60

120 Saturation 120

Depth
Depth

180 180

240 240

300 300

Bottom360 360
Bottom
Fig. 1 - Variation of Porosity and Saturation
with Depth Fig. 2 - Variation of permeability with depth

Oil Gravity (API)

15 25 35 Viscosity (cp)
0 0 4 8 12 16 20
0
60
60
120
120
Depth

Depth

180 180
240 240

300 300

360 360

Fig. 4 - Variation of Viscosity with

Fig 3 - Variation of API with Depth Depth
10 SPE 80437

GOR (scf/stb)
1

Relative Permeability
15 215 415
0.8 Oil
0
0.6 Water
60
0.4
120
0.2
Depth

180
0
240 0 20 40 60 80 100

300 Water Saturation (%)

360
Fig. 6 - Laboratory Relative Permeability
Fig. 5 - Variation of GOR with Depth Curves

1
Relative Permeability

0.8
0.6 Oil
0.4
0.2 Water

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Saturation (%)

Fig. 7 - Laboratory and Pseudo-Relative

Permeability Curves (dashed lines: Pseudos)
SPE 80437 11

Qo Data Qo Simulated

6000

Oil Rate (stb/d) 5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Years of Production)

Fig 8 - Full Field History Match (Oil Rate)

SP Data SP Simulated

4500

4000
Static Pressure (psi)

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (Years of Production)
Fig 9 - Full Field History Match (Pressure)
12 SPE 80437

240.00
15 Realizations
230.00
NPV (10 M$)

220.00
210.00
200.00
190.00
180.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
WAG Ratio
Fig. 10 - The effect of WAG Ratio on NPV

260
250
15 Realizations
240
230
NPV (10 M$)

220
210
200
190
180
170
160
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
CO2 Slug Size per WAG Cycle

Fig. 11 - Effect of CO2 Slug Size per WAG Cycle on NPV

SPE 80437 13

280
270 15 Realizations
260
250
NPV (10 M$)

240
230
220
210
200
190
180
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Total Slug Size (%PV)
Fig. 12 - The effect of Total Slug Size on NPV

500
400 15 Realizations
NPV (10 M$)

300
200
100
0
-100
-200
10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Oil Price ($/bbl)
Fig. 13 - The effect of Crude oil Prices on NPV
(CO2 price=$1.00/Mcf)
14 SPE 80437

600
15 Realizations

NPV (Million $)
400

200

-200
10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Oil Price ($/bbl)

Fig. 14 - The effect of Crude oil Prices on NPV

(CO2 price=$1.50/Mcf)