1

ADIPEC 2013 Technical Conference Manuscript

Name: Majid Mohammadpour Faskhoodi

Company: Schlumberger

Job title: Senior Reservoir Consultant

Address: Calgary, AB, Canada T2P0G7

Phone number:

Email:

Category: EOR: Challenges and Lessons Learnt from Field Studies

Abstract ID: 687

Title: Feasibility Study of Gas Re-injection in Giant Carbonate Reservoir in the Middle East- EOR Application in A Green

Field (Case Study)

Author(s): Majid M. Faskhoodi, Ramin Bahraie, Xing Zhang, Janelle Simon and Qinglai Ni, Schlumberger; Tian Ping, Ou

Jin, Wong Lee Jean, Wen Daoming, Faisal Abdulla Mohamad; PetroChina

This manuscript was prepared for presentation at the ADIPEC 2013 Technical Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10-13 November 2013.

This manuscript was selected for presentation by the ADIPEC 2013 Technical Committee Review and Voting Panel upon online submission of an abstract by the named author(s).

Abstract

2

Introduction

Selecting a suitable formation reservoir for gas re-injection

T

3

Oil recovery mechanism and displacement efficiency under gas re-injection

4

’

Table 1 - Calculated MMPs Vs Observed MMPs

5

Defining and optimizing the composition of re-injected gas

OPTMIX and OPTDRY Gas

6

RAW and DRY Gas:

Optimization of gas injection parameters by using 2D and 3D sector models

7

Full field production performance forecast during gas re-injection

8

Table 2 - Gas Availability in the Field

Table 3 - Amount of available gas for 4 types of gases

Sensitivity analysis on full field model

9

Cap Rock Integrity Study using 3D Coupled Reservoir Geo-mechanical Modeling

10

–

–

–

–

11

12

The authors wished to thank PetroChina management for their support and permission to publish and present this paper

ROI: Reservoir Opportunity Index

Phi: Porosity

NTG: Net to gross

Perm: Permeability

Sw: water saturation

GOR: gas oil ratio

MF: mole fraction

JJ Taber, SPE, FD Martin, SPE and R.S. Seright, SPE, New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center; EOR Screening

Criteria Revisited- part 1; SPE 35385

W van Vark,S.K. Masalmeh, and J Van Drop, Shell Abu Dhabi, M. Abu Al Nasr and S. Al-Khanbashi, ADNOC; Simulation

Study of Miscible Gas Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery in Low Permeable Carbonate Reservoir in Abu Dhabi; SPE

88717

JJ Taber, SPE, FD Martin, SPE and R.S. Seright, SPE, New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center; EOR Screening

Criteria Revisited- part 2; SPE 39234

Saad F Alkafeef, SPE, and Alforgi M. Zaid, SPE, College of Technological Studies ; Review of and Outlook for Enhanced Oil

Recovery Techniques in Kuwait Oil Reservoirs; IPTC 11234

13

Ahmad Aladasani, SPE, Baojun Bai, SPE, Kuwait Oil Company & Missouri University of Science and Technology; Recent

Development and Updated Screening Criteria for Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques; SPE 130726

M Kabir SPE, P McKenzie, C Connell, SPE and T O’Sullivan, SPE, Santos Ltd; Gas Injection Technique to Develop Rim Oil,

Merreenie Field, Australia; SPE 50050

George J Stosur, SPE, Petroleum Consultant, J. Roger Hite, SPE, Business Fundamentals Group, Norman F. Carnahan, SPE,

Carnahan Corporation, Karl Millet, SPE, Consultant; The Alphabet Soup of IOR, EOR and AOR: Effective Communication

Requires a Definition of Tem; SPE 84908

J H Hyatt,l SPE and D.A. Hutchison, ExxonMobile Production Co; Enhanced Oil Recovery in East Texas; SPE 93631

X. Zhang and N. Koutsabeloulis, David Press and KwangHo Lee (2011). Dual-Permeability Model for Coupled Reservoir

Geomechanical Modeling: Application for Field Production Data, SPE 148078.

Dipankar Dutta, C.V.G. Nair, Xing Zhang, Khaqan Khan, Assef Mohamad-Hussein, Muhammad Yaser, David Press, Nasser

Faisal Al-Khalifa, Eman Hadad Eaid Faldi, and Nick Koutsabeloulis (2011). A 3D Coupled Reservoir Geomechanics Study

for Pressure, Water Production, and Oil Production Simulation: Application in Umm-Gudair Field, West Kuwait, SPE

147943.

Xing Zhang, Nick Koutsabeloulis, Tron Kristiansen, Kes Heffer, Ian Main, John Greenhough and Assef Mohamad Hussein

(2011). Modelling of Depletion-Induced Microseismic Events by Coupled Reservoir Simulation: Application to Valhall

Field, SPE 143378.

N. Koutsabeloulis and X. Zhang (2009). 3D Reservoir Geomechanical Modelling in Oil/Gas Field Production, SPE 126095.

X. Zhang, N. Koutsabeloulis and K. Heffer (2007). Hydro-mechanical modelling of critically stressed, faulted reservoirs,

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 91: 31-50.

Figure 1 - ROI Map and sector locations

14

Figure 2 - Sector modeling

Figure 3 - EOS validating workflow

15

Figure 4 - Mole Fraction of Injected Gas vs. Saturation Pressure

Figure 5 - Pressure vs. Oil Recovery (MMP Calculation)

Figure 6 - Sector model with extended boundary

Sector 1

Extended Boundary

Extended Boundary

Area of

Interest

16

Figure 7 - Full field development planning workflow

Figure 8 - Infill producers/ injectors location

Figure 9 - Infill Producer/Injector schematic

Full Scale model

2D model

3D sector

model

17

Figure 10 - Effect of gas injection on production of infill producer

Figure 11- Field cumulative oil production (different gas types)

─── Raw

─── Dry

─── OPTMIX

─── OPTDRY

18

Figure 12 - Field cumulative oil production (different volume of injection)

Figure 13 - Field cumulative oil production (different starting time of gas injection)

─── GIR=85MMSCFD

─── GIR=150MMSCFD

─── GIR=200MMSCFD

─── GIR=250MMSCFD

─── GI Start @ 2015

─── GI Start @ 2017

─── GI Start @ 2020

19

Figure 14 - ND vs GI of 85 MMSCFD vs WAG injection

Figure 15 - ND vs GI of 150 MMSCFD vs WAG injection

20

Figure 16 - Illustration of cases studies 1 and 2, in terms of mechanical property uncertainty.

Figure 17 - Reservoir pressure evolution in gas injection Scenario two

.

y = 44.338e-8.243x

0

10

20

30

40

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

GP

a

Porosity

Young's modulus

y = 57224e-7.521x

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

kP

a

Porosity

Cohesion Correlation

y = 37.701e-1.305x

0

10

20

30

40

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deg

ree

Porosity

Friction angle

21

Figure 18 - Cap rock up-movement (m) and down-movement (m) in Gas Injection Scenario Two. Negative - downwards movement; positive - upwards movement.

Figure 19 -Predicted maximum uplifts at cap rock during Gas Injection Scenario One

22

Figure 20 - Predicted maximum uplifts at cap rock during Gas Injection Scenario One

Figure 21 - Predicted extensional stresses within cap rock in Gas Injection Scenario Two with the mechanical properties in Case 3