Application of Tracer for

Reservoir Characterization


Bureau reservoir characterization methodology comprises:
-Determining reservoir architecture
- Establishing fluid-flow trend
- Constructing reservoir mode
- Identifying reserve growth potential.
- Research spans multiple reservoir types, including carbonates and
siliclastics; tight, waterdrive, and retrograde gas condensate; and water
drive oil, secondary oil recovery, heavy oil, and light oil.

Further investigations within reservoir type include integrating
petrophysical, seismic, and geologic attributes; 3-D geocelluar model
building; delineating flow units and fluid flow compartments, and
documenting reserve growth concepts under varying reservoir

Reservoir heterogeneities play an important role in oil recovery by improved recovery
techniques. In any fluid injection operation, high permeability streaks divert substantial
quantities of the injected fluid. This unequal distribution of the injected fluid greatly
reduces the volumetric sweep efficiency of the reservoir and, hence, lowers the efficiency
of the displacement processes. Detection of high permeability zones and channels would
be helpful in the understanding, design, operation, and interpretation of injection projects.

A means to follow fluid movement in a reservoir would be an important tool in determining
the characteristics of a formation directly. Radioactive and chemical tracers provide the
capability to achieve this purpose.
Information on reservoir heterogeneity supplied by flow of tracers in a reservoir is valuable
in the design of assisted recovery operations and also useful in reservoir simulation

the number of the layers is unknown and only a tracer breakthrough curve from a stratified system is available. Often. In practice. and thickness . tracer breakthrough profiles are a summation of tracer responses from several layers which constitute the formation. From the constructed layer responses. To analyze tracer breakthrough profiles. porosity. is generally extracted from tracer breakthrough profiles detected at the production wells. it would be possible to compute important parameters for the layers such as permeability. whether qualitative or quantitative. results must be deconvoluted into the constituent layer responses.This information.

2. Identification of offending injectors- With different tracers injected i n t o a formation. Directional flow trends- When different tracers are injected into a existing wells for understanding the flow trends by identifying the tracer breakthrough at the producers located along the preferential flow direction. . high permeability streak between the two wells. Remedial treatment of the injectors would normally be necessary. 2. TRACER Volumetric DATA sweep- The volume of fluid injected at an injection w e l l to breakthrough of the tracer at an o f f s e t producer is indicative of the volumetric sweep. a comparison of arrival times of tracers at the production wells can determine the injectors responsible for early breakthrough in specific producers. QUALITATIVE INTERPRETATION OF 1. A small breakthrough sweep effici6ncy indicates the existence of a fracture or a thin.efficiency between t h a t p a i r of wells.

the individual arrival time of the tracers at the producers can be used to measure the relative velosity of the injected fluids. This information is useful in determining the appropriate fluid to use for mobility control to achieve a more uniform sweep of EOR recovery operations. . Evaluation of sweep improvement treatments- The success or effectiveness of sweep efficiency treatments can be evaluated by comparing the breakthrough times of tracers before and after the treatment. 5. ---Cont-- 4. 6. Delineation of flow barriers- Lack of response to an injected tracer at a production well indicates the existence of a barrier or a sealing fault between the pair of wells. Relative velocities of injected fluids- When different fluids tagged with different: tracers are injected simultaneously or sequentially i n the same w e l l .

1972). Convection depends mainly on the well arrangements and operating conditions. one must have a thorough knowledge of the mechanism of tracer movement i n the formation. In a reservoir. the potential differences are established e i t h e r by density differences between the flowing fluids or by production and injection wells drilled into a formation. such as flow rates of the wells. the transport of tracer material in a porous medium is subject t o two phenomena--convection and hydrodynamic dispersion (Bear. . In general. This is resulted due to potential gradients imposed on the system. A comprehensive survey of the work done on convection for different well patterns was provided by Craig (1971). MECHANISM OF TRACER FLOW To perform detailed quantitative analysis on interwell tracer breakthrough curves. Convection: Convection is used here to describe bulk movement of fluids as governed by Darcy's law.

On a microscopic level. on the other hand. dispersion results from variations in velocity of tracer material as it flows through the separating and rejoining pore passages.Mechanical dispersion. . and that occurring in a direction perpendicular to the mean flow (transverse dispersion). a distinction has been made between mechanical dispersion occurring in the direction of flow (longitudinal dispersion). Molecular diffusion results from component concentration gradients established between two miscible fluids. and is independent of flow velocity. Molecular diffusion .2. Mechanical dispersion. is the result of movement of individual fluids particles in tortuous pore channels of a porous medium. Hydrodynamic Dispersion: Hydrodynamic dispersion is composed of two parts: . In two dimensional flow.

. has been done to study the phenomenon of dispersion (mixing) in porous media for various flow geometries. Considerable work.-.Cont--- As a consequence of hydrodynamic dispersion. both theoretical and experimental. The amount of spreading (or mixing) depends on the dispersivity of the porous medium and the geometry of the flow system. tracer material gradually spreads and occupies an increasing portion of the flow domain beyond the region it would occupy according to fluids convection alone.

q/A .Linear Flow Aronofsky and Heller (1957) presented a mathematical analysis of mixing (dispersion) that occurs between two miscible fluids as one fluid displaces the other linearly through a porous medium.(1) Where. They solved the following continuity equation for the fluid concentration: ----------------. C = concentration of displacing f l u i d . mass fraction K = effective mixing coefficient v = microscopic velocity.

2. From this is observation. They were able to match the data reported by von Rosenburg (1956). K. .The Aronofsky-Heller solution is: ----------------. Aronofsky and Heller concluded that the effective mixing coefficient was proportional to flow velocity to the power 1. as well as data provided by Koch and Slobod (1957). Furthermore.(2) The authors showed that the second term in the brackets was quite small except at small values of x or large values of K. was a function of fluid velocity. They discovered that the effective mixing coefficient. Where as K= D/FØ + α V Aronofsky and Heller used this solution to analyze data from miscible flow experiments.2. the K-values computed from von Rosenburg's data when graphed against flow rate on log-log graph paper resulted in a straight line with a slope equal to 1.

errors of the order of magnitude of experimental errors are introduced if a symmetrical solution is assumed instead of the actual asymmetrical one. a maximum error of 3% was introduced by neglecting the second term in Eq. -2 solution were not symmetrical about the plane of x = v t for small values of vx/K.-2. -1) with the same boundary conditions considered by Aronofsky and Heller. and obtained a solution identical in the form to Eq. and the corresponding concentration profiles became symmetric about the x = vt plane. Ogata and Banks showed that the concentration profiles corresponding to Eq. . In ordinary experiments. -2. For vx/K > 500. This implies that the second term can be neglected for all practical purposes.Ogata and Banks (1961) independently solved the one-dimensional convective Diffusivity equation (Eq.

Raimondi et al.25 cm. For packings of uniform size particles. a was characteristic constant 0. The experiments showed that molecular diffusion was the dominating factor at low flow rates. the experimental values of a were between 0. and a constant determined by structuree of the porous medium. (1959) found that mixing between miscible fluids was controlled by two parameters: coefficient of molecular diffusion. and became negligible at high flow rates. It is less than the actual molecular diffusion coefficient by product of formation resistivity factor and porosity. In this relationship.80 the packs which was found to be equal to 0.15 and 0. The term a is a constant which depends on the structure. D' is the apparent coefficient of molecular diffusion within the porous medium. .68 for uniform spheres. pore size and grain size distribution & porous of the medium. For consolidated Berea sandstone cores. They concluded that the effective mixing coefficient was given by K = D' + av.

viscosity ratio of the fluids and pack diameter on the amount of hydrodynamic dispersion which they called length of mixed zone. distance travelled. bead size (type of porous medium).5 ft/ day and 16. He added methanol and sucrose as double tracers to the displacing fluid . They studied the effect of fluid velocity. Their conclusion was that mixing phenomenon in displacements with favorable viscosity ratio could be explained by: . This indicated that molecular diffusion was not an important factor in the mixing of displacing and displaced fluids in the frontal regions. Methanol has a higher molecular diffusion coefficient than sucrose. The methanol and sucrose concentration profiles detected at the outlet end of the linear core showed no appreciable differences at two displacement rates: 0.5 ft/day.Handy (1959) designed an experiment to study the effects of molecular diffusion on the mixing-zone size for miscible displacements.

For consolidated cores.4 is the apparent molecular diffusion.(3) ----------------. ----------------. .(4) The first term on the right hand side of Eq. depends on the nature of porous medium as wells as the viscosity ratio of the fluids. which is equal to the r a t i o of the molecular diffusion constant: divided by the product of the formation resistivity factor and porosity of the system. known as the dispersion constant. The second term is the mechanical dispersion. values of a were found to be 10 to 100 times greater than the values of a for unconsolidated cores. Constant a.

The authors also discovered that the effect of molecular diffusion on mixing was negligible except at very low velocities. This implied that the substantial mixing had occurred in consolidated cores as compared to the packed beds. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF TRACER DATA The quantitative analysis of tracer breakthrough profiles from petroleum. . geothermal reservoirs and underground aquifers could be an adequate technique for production performance analysis.

Wallick and Jenkins applied their method to analyze the results of afield tracer programme of helium injection into a reservoir undergoing in. They developed a theoretical method to compute the results of a short-time tracer test. The computation of tracer concentration profile at the production well was then achieved by computing the tracer travel times on various stream from the source-sink system considering the convection phenomena. meaning that the tracer material did not mix with fluids ahead or behind it.Application in Petroleum Reservoirs: Wallick and Jenkins (1954) were the earliest investigators who tried to extract quantitative information about the characteristics of a formation from tracer output data. the reservoir was assumed to be homogeneous and infinite large. . a pulse of tracer material was injected under steady state flow conditions into one well and was detected at a second well. In the analysis. In this.situ combustion.

AFTER BALDWZN (1966) . and the average permeability and porosity values computed for the formation were reasonably close t o those determined from core data MATCH To PRODUCED TRACER CONCENTRATION BY SMITH AND BRIGHAM.The computed concentration profiles was in qualitative agreement with the observed data.

Instead. the tracer flowed towards the pumped well as a results of Regional Pressure Gradients established by the pumping action. . hydrologists have also been intereseted in defining aquifers adequately (Halevy and Nir (1962) introduced a pulse of radio active Co60 in the form of K~CO(CN) into the reservoir and monitored ints conc in nearby at the water at a pumped well located 250 meters from the input well. Since the flow field was essentially radial.Applications in Underground Aquifers: Besides petroleum engineers. it was assumed that produced tracer peak the reservoir concentration occurred after pumping a volume equal to the cylindrical pore volume between the observation well and and the pumped well. This test differed from usual interwell tracer tests because the injected batch of tracer was not displaced by a chase fluid.

the basic ideas are the same. 1981). Short circulating and early appearance of injected material at the production wells are common. Although methods developed to analyze geothermal tracer data are somewhat different form of sedimentary formations. A response from an injected pulse of tracer is generally detected in a matter of hours and the response curve usually has a single peak with a long tail. Unlike petroleum reservoirs. .Application in Geothermal Reservoirs Geologic characteristics of geothermal reservoirs can also be revealed through detailed analysis of tracer tests conducted in geothermal formations. most geothermal reservoirs are highly fractured and the fractures are connected to each other forming a network of channels (Horne.

with dispersion coefficients being proportional to fluid velocity in each direction.A field test conducted with a pair of injection and production wells using chemical and radioactive tracers. Tester et al. was solved to compute the tracer response profile from a homogeneous layer. each zone being homogeneous but different characteristics from others. The curve fitting process automatically generated the parameters of the zones. a two-dimensional convective diffusivity equation. The analysis of tracer field data was performed basically by curve fitting the observed field data with those computed from the model. proposed a mathematical model in which the reservoir was assumed to be composed of several porous zones. (1979) concluded that a tracer response curve from a hydraulically . Tester et al. In This model.

Thermal Stability of tracer at reservoir temperature -.Designing of tracer programme: a. Identification of tracer: -. Designing of tracer quantity . Determination of dispersion constant of tracer under static and dynamic conditions -. -. Compatibility of tracer with the reservoir rock matrix and formation fluid and also with the chemicals used for water treatment design -. MB studies of tracer with reservoir rock . injection/ formation water under simulated reservoir conditions.

Pattern pore volume & HCPV of the pilot/ area of the reservoir .Past pressure of the reservoir/ wells . Structural map .Review of existing water/ EOR pattern flooding . Reservoir Inputs: .Well completion details .Formation Evaluation report of each wells .Cum production history .b. In-place reserves of the pattern area . Detailed past history of production behaviour of pattern flooding wells . Isobar map & Iso pay thickness map .Detailed history of VDL & CBL (variable density log & casing behind log) .Detailed history of water injection/ EOR injection in the pattern area .

Fractional Water Distribution and Sweep Efficiency calculations .

xlsx .tracer Book1.

’1 ) 3) m3) (m3) (SV) c1/c2) 2 (%) “V” 2.0 JH#32 91543 40508 16837 0. Sweep volume calculation in ASP pilot wells of Jhalora Field Cum.5 5 45 7 10592 . ASP Swep “a” slug C2 C1 Ce t Well V2 V1 =(V2.1586 0. Ve *Ci V inj till (gm/m3 (gm/m (gm/ * Ci Vol No.32 10802 52515 10.322 168 2.74 10345 91453 78746 56345 0.863 16288 21846 6.0468 0.0753 6903 9 37 29 9 23242 0 178 0. (m3) (m3) V1)/ln( (m3) (m3) Feb.24 7 3 9072 JH#14 563 0.86 76905 JH#54 91453 49258 1787 0.747 14455 16348 14.


well Tracer Perm As per distance break cal. As model between through per tracer Perm. injector to time data (md) producers (ft) (days) (md) JH#32 524.8 47 2031 4400 JH#54 656 17 7134 6500 JH#145 656 472 350 4800 .Permeability Mapping in ASP pilot Wells of Jhalora Field Well No Int.



Thanks .