Paper Caracterizacion

S ECTION 2
WHY IS RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION NEEDED?

EXPERT'S OPINIONS
"WF success is dependent on reservoir geology" "Geology is never known as well as it needs to be known"
R ESERVOIR C HARACTERIZATION
"Many WF fall below expectations because of the flaws in reservoir characterization "Most WF fail because of inaccurate reservoir characterization" One needs to develop an in-depth qualitative understanding and an accurate quantitative description of the reservoir state at the: 1. At the start of waterflood project 2. At any time during the recovery process 3. At the time of waterflood abandonment The following features specify the reservoir state: 1. Pressure and Temperature 2. Rock Properties Spatial (3-D) description (mapping) of all reservoir and non-reservoir rock properties: Lithology, Porosity, Permeability, Anisotropy, Compressibility, Heterogeneity Compartmentalization, Stratification, Faults, Fractures, Connectivity, Continuity Mechanical strength, etc.
3. Fluid Properties Detailed 3-D description of Oil, Gas, and Water properties: Viscosity, Density, Solution Gas-oil ratio, Compressibility, Fluid distribution, Change of Composition with Pressure/Temperature variation, Injection water and Formation water interaction, etc.
4. Rock/Fluid Interactive Properties Relative Permeability, Capillary Pressure, Wettability, Water/Rock interaction, etc.
Section 2
It should be clearly understood that accurate quantification of all of the above features is almost impossible. Reservoir characterization is therefore a dynamic process, requiring continual updating and upgrading due to: data becoming available only in a piecemeal manner, data applicability and reliability is often uncertain and improves with time, better interpretation techniques continue to become available, newer insights are gained with time, and unanticipated problems surface during the productive life requiring a different/fresh look.
No one discipline alone generates, manipulates, and utilizes all the above data. Hence, reservoir characterization is a multi-disciplinary effort. The following disciplines participate in the process: Geophysics Geology Petrophysics Hydrology Reservoir Engineering/Production Engineering/Drilling Engineering/Facilities Engineering Laboratory Specialists
A synergistic approach has proven efficient and productive, saving lots of time, effort, money, and subsequent finger-pointing between various disciplines. The total scope of a reservoir characterization project is depicted in Figure 2-1.
Reservoir Characterization
RESERVOR CHARACTERIZATION
FLUIDS
Type Composition Distribution Contacts
HABITAT
Depth Pressure Temperature
EXTERNAL FEATURES
Shape & Volume Boundaries Aquifers
FABRIC
Lithology Porosity Permeability Heterogeneity Wettability Mechanical Properties
INTERNAL FEATURES
Faults Fractures Compartments Stratification Continuity Connectivity
Figure 2- 1
Section 2
RESERVOIR HABITAT
A reservoir is a sub-surface, 3-dimensional rock body with special attributes such that hydrocarbons can accumulate. These attributes are: Porosity - void space for the fluids Permeability - interconnected pore space to provide flow communication Trapping Mechanism - cap rock above and oil/water contact below/pinch-outs
Common reservoir rocks are formed of limestone, dolomite, and sandstone. Reservoirs come in various shapes and sizes. The most common are: Domes Anticlines Faulted Structures Stratigraphic - unconformity Stratigraphic - sand lenses, shoe-string sands Reefs
These shapes influence the development/production process, not only during the primary depletion but also during the displacement type of IOR (Improved Oil Recovery) processes. Traps with moderate to high relief are commonly developed under peripheral water injection schemes. Traps with low relief are generally developed under pattern flood schemes. Other factors may favor the pattern flood low permeability, high heterogeneity, low well cost, shorter project life.
All reservoirs are under the influence of two PRESSURE sources: Pore (Reservoir) Pressure Overburden Pressure (or Rock External Overburden Stress)
PORE PRESSURE
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
Figure 2- 2
Three types of reservoir pressure systems are encountered. These are shown below: Normal Pressure Reservoir PR = 0.46 x Depth
Open System Oil Water
Closed System
Abnormally High (Geo-Pressure) Reservoir PR > 0.46 x Depth
Oil
Sub-Normal Pressure Reservoir PR < 0.46 x Depth
Oil
Oil
(Note: Pressure Gradient of salty formation water is assumed at 0.46 psi/ft.)
Section 2
PRESSURE - DEPTH PLOTS

The pressure gradient from a Pressure Depth plot, such as one the shown here, is indicative of the type of fluid present as a continuous phase in the pore space of a reservoir.
0 100
Gas Gradient < 0.1 psi/ft Oil Gradient = 0.3 to 0.4 psi/ft Water Gradient > 0.434 psi/ft
DEPTH
200 300
) .0 (1 ID U 8) FL (.7 S UD U M PL NG K LI C O IL R DR ND IC ) ) 92 OU AT (.4 4 22 P . ST ER R( 15 TE AT A 04) EO 4 G EW I L (. 25 1) HW LIN RES (. VY O F SA HEA HT OIL LIG
400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,000 psi
(0.50) NATURAL GAS
(0.05)
1,250 psi
1,500 psi
1,750 psi
2,000 psi
PRESSURE
The presence of more than one fluid in the reservoir is indicated by the change of pressure gradient. The intersection of pressure trends shows the position of the contact between the fluids. RFT and MDT data (Schlumberger), SFT data (Halliburton), or FMT data (Baker Hughes) is extremely useful for this purpose.
Gas
SG = .12
FLUID CONTACT SLOPE BREAK
slope = .050 psi/ft.
SG = .87
DEPTH
Oil
FLUID CONTACT
SLOPE BREAK
Brine
SG = 1.14
RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE
Reservoir temperature is obtained by: 1. Direct measurement using wireline thermometer 2. Calculation from regional thermal gradient and known depth A generalized Depth versus Temperature plot is shown below. The thermal gradient, slope of this curve, in most of the oil-producing areas of the world in the range of 1-2 degrees F per 100 ft of depth.
Depth, feet
18,000
Temperature
Section 2
During the primary recovery phase, reservoir temperature usually remains essentially constant. All reservoir processes are assumed isothermal. During a waterflood, three changes are brought about due to the injection of colder water in a hot reservoir. 1. The reservoir rock around the injection well gets colder. With continuous injection, the region of cooled rock expands outward away from the injector. The resulting thermal shock causes rock contraction, thereby inducing rock cracking and fractures in the reservoir. 2. High-pressure injection water increases pore pressure in the vicinity of the well and thereby decreases the in-situ stress level. This reduced stress level can be sufficient to cause shear failure of the rock and slippage of faults. As the water-front moves outward away from the injection well, the region of shear failure and fault slippage continues to grow. 3. Temperature decrease in the vicinity of the well results in a region of increased viscosity. This region expands as water front moves outward into the reservoir.
In many waterflood projects, continual improvement in well injectivity has been noted. Pressure transient well tests have confirmed presence of large negative skins and increased formation permeability. The combined effect of the three is rather hard to predict without simulating the thermal and geo-mechanical behavior of the reservoir.
EFFECT OF STRESS CHANGE DURING A WF ON PERFORMANCE

During a WF process, the effective stress (Poverburden - Preservoir) around an injector changes due to increase in reservoir pressure and a decrease in reservoir temperature. This change has resulted in one or more of the following changes in many WF projects: 1. Shear failure of rock resulting in hairline fractures 2. Elongation of existing fractures 3. Slippage of faults 4. Wellbore failure due to caving of wellbore wall and slipping of faults In comparison, the effective stress increases due to decrease in reservoir pressure. This change has resulted in reservoir compaction and surface subsidence in many projects.
POROSITY
Porosity is the measure of the void spaces in a rock where fluids (oil, gas, and water) reside under reservoir conditions of pressure and temperature. Porosity = = Total Void Space Total Bulk Volume PV BV BV - GV BV
= Where: BV = Total Bulk Volume GV = Total Grain Volume PV = Total Pore Volume
Porosity is dependent upon rock type, grain size distribution, shape of grains and their arrangement, nature and degree of cementation, deposition history, and digenetic changes. Rock Type Limestone Sandstone Common Porosity Range, % 3-12 12-28
Porosity may be defined on the basis of: TOTAL: which accounts for all the available void space EFFECTIVE: which accounts for only that void space which is interconnected and which participates in the fluid movement in the reservoir. All reservoir-engineering calculations are based on this value as it pertains to pore space of economic interest.
Figure 2-3 shows the type of porosity in a thin section.
Section 2
SAND OR LIME GRAINS
CEMENTING MATERIAL
NON-EFFECTIVE POROSITY
DEAD END POROSITY EFFECTIVE POROSITY
Figure 2- 3
We need maps showing distribution of effective porosity under reservoir conditions of pressure, temperature, and stress.
METHODS FOR POROSITY MEASUREMENT

1. Direct laboratory measurements on cores cut from the reservoir 2. Indirect calculation from physical measurement of a rock property (that can be correlated with porosity) using logs
DIRECT LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS

Core samples of various sizes are used. Core plugs are used for homogeneous rocks (sandstones, in general) while full size cores may often be used for limestone. Direct measurements on cores in the laboratory under either reservoir conditions or room (bench-top) conditions. For clean and dry cores, the following methods are used: Saturation Method the core sample is 100% saturated with a liquid of known density. 'Boyle's Law' Method the simplest, the fastest, and the least expensive method.
10
Gas
Sample Chamber Reference Volume Pressure Gauge To Gas Pressure Source Pressure Regulator
Figure 2- 4
Valve
Valve
The decision to duplicate reservoir conditions or room conditions in the laboratory depends on the nature of rock. If effective porosity is stress dependent (such as Rock C), reservoir conditions must be duplicated. If effective porosity is not stress dependent (such as Rock A), room condition measurement would be satisfactory.
1.0
B
Porosity: Fraction of Original .8
.6
.4
Initial Porosity A 24% B 28% C 33% Description Well Cemented Friable Unconsolidated PV/PV/PSI 3 X 10-6 15 X 10-6 40 X 10-6
.2
.0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Net Pressure: PSI

Figure 2- 5
Net Pressure = Overburden Pressure Reservoir Pressure
11
Section 2
POROSITY FROM WIRELINE LOGS

Well logs are depth records of a physical property of the reservoir rock, which can be related to porosity through some physical or empirical relationship. Most common relationships relate Porosity to Density, Acoustic Velocity, and Neutron Population. Comparison of log-derived porosity with core-measured porosity selects the logging tool that is best suited for a particular area.
There are various practical reasons for the choice of logging over coring. 1. Log measurements are under reservoir conditions of pressure, temperature, and stress. 2. Logging is cheaper and faster than coring. Hence, logs are run on all wells but only a small number of wells are cored. 3. Porosity information is available shortly after logging. 4. A continuous porosity profile is made available.
12
PERMEABILITY
Permeability is the measure of the ease of flow of fluids through the interconnected pore space. It is the single most important property, since it governs the rate of fluid flow. Hence, the economics of a project. Darcy's Law, an empirical relationship, provides the basis for quantifying permeability. It relates flow rate through a porous medium to the properties of rock and fluid, and to the applied pressure differential, by the following expression:
Pi q Po q
q=
Where: q K Pi PO L = Flow Rate, cc/sec = Permeability, darcy = Inlet Pressure, psig = Outlet Pressure, psig = Fluid Viscosity, cp = Core Length, cm
K A (Pi - Po ) L
Reservoir permeability varies over a wide range. Rock Type Limestone Sandstone Permeability Range, MD 0.1-----200 10-----3500 Average, MD 10-100 50-250
Permeability is the property of the rock alone and is independent of the type of fluid so long as it totally fills the effective pore volume (100% saturation) and flows through the rock in a laminar manner.
13
Section 2
Various methods are used for measuring permeability: 1. Laboratory Measurement 2. Well Tests 3. Porosity - Permeability Correlations 4. Potential Logging Approach
LABORATORY MEASUREMENT
Core samples of various sizes are used. Small plugs are used for a homogeneous rock (sandstones, in general) while full size cores are used for a heterogeneous rock (limestone and dolomite). Rock (Absolute) permeability is routinely measured in the laboratory under room pressure and temperature conditions. For stress sensitive cores, measurements must be made under effective reservoir pressure. For routine measurements of permeability, an apparatus named Permeameter and shown in the figure below, is the apparatus commonly used.
P1 Upstream Pressure
P2 Downstream Pressure
Pressure Regulator Sample Holder

Figure 2- 6
Calibrated Orifice
Gas (air, nitrogen, helium) is used as the test fluid as it is more convenient and tests are rapidly conducted. If water is used as the test fluid, formation water or synthesized brine is used.
14
A full diameter core is used for horizontal and vertical permeability measurements. Horizontal Permeability K(x) in a pre-selected direction (parallel to bedding plane) K(90) in the direction at 90 degrees to the pre-selected direction
Maximum
90 From Maximum
Vertical Permeability K(z) is measured in the direction perpendicular to the bedding plane.
Oriented cores duplicating their geographical placement in the reservoir provide very important data on the directional permeability trends in a reservoir. Through identification of permeability trends (grain orientation in clastic rocks and fractures, joints, fossil alignments in carbonate rocks) this data assists in injection/production wells placements to optimize sweep efficiency of a displacement project. Many waterfloods fail due to the limited knowledge of the anisotropic character of the reservoir rock.
For stress sensitive rocks (friable, unconsolidated), laboratory measurements are made under simulated reservoir conditions of pressure (net overburden pressure). Since temperature has no significant effect, tests are made at room temperature.
Old Technology New Technology:
Downhole Photos, Image Logs (FMI/FMS)
15
Section 2
PERMEABILITY FROM WELL TESTS

Well tests are very important sources for permeability (K oh to be exact) values for a reservoir. The value is considered more representative as the well test is representative of a much larger portion of the reservoir than is a core. The measurements can be easily interpreted into effective K oh (md-ft) of a reservoir within its radius of influence. The estimated value is valid under reservoir conditions of pressure, temperature, and saturations. Common well tests are: Pressure Build Up Pressure Fall off
Permeability data from well test analysis is continually integrated with that obtained from the core analysis data. The objective is to evolve a consistent reservoir description.
PERMEABILITY FROM WIRELINE LOGS

No wireline log is available at the present time that directly measures permeability in a reservoir. Some newer tools such as NMR and CMR are currently under active research and development. They are proving promising in some applications; especially after the log response is conditioned to the available core data. Whenever successful, significant savings will be realized in terms of cost and time.
16
FORMATION COMPRESSIBILITY
Reservoir rocks, just like reservoir fluids, are compressible and expand as pore pressure decreases due to production and thereby provide a source of expulsive energy. In reservoir engineering calculations, rock compressibility is reported on the pore volume basis. Its value is obtained from: Laboratory Measurements Correlations Hall Van Der Knapp
In the oil reservoirs, total compressibility is given by: Ct = Co So + CwSw + CgSg + Cf
when P > PBP Ct = CQSw + CwSw + Cf when P < PBP gas compressibility dominates all others rock compressibility is usually ignored Cr << Cg Ct = CgSg as Cg >> Co or Cw or Cf In the aquifer, total compressibility is given by: Ct = Cw + Cf
For most competent rocks, the value ranges between 2 20 x E06 (1/psi). For unconsolidated rock, this value can exceed 100 E-6 (1/psi).
17
Section 2
ROCK WETTABILITY
Wettability is the tendency of one liquid (oil or water) to preferentially spread over the surfaces of a rock, when two or more fluids (oil, gas, and water) are present together. Gas is always the non-wetting fluid. Hence, it preferentially occupies the centers of the larger pores.
Reservoir rocks are made up of minerals (silica and carbonates) that are natively water-wet. Hence, all reservoirs should initially be water- wet. Many reservoirs exhibit a large range of wetting tendency (from strongly water-wet to neutral-wet to strongly oil-wet); therefore, the change must have occurred some time after oil accumulation. A number of possible reasons for the alteration have been suggested: (1) some crude oils contain surface-active ingredients and polar compounds, and (2) some are rich in asphaltenes and wax-like material.
In some reservoirs, wettability depends on structural position high structural areas are often oil-wet; upper flank wells are of neutral wettability; areas closer to OWC are often water-wet. CONTACT ANGLE is a common measure of rock wettability. It is measured in the laboratory by using samples of reservoir fluids and a crystal of the rock that makes up the pore surfaces in the reservoir. After equilibrium is established, the contact angle is measured through the water phase.
OW C WATER-WET OIL WATER C OS WS ROCK SURFACE
C OIL-WET
Figure 2- 7
18
The contact angle scale below shows the ranges that classify rock wettability.
STRONGLY WATER-WET STRONGLY OIL-WET
NEUTRAL
30
60
90
120
150
180
WATER WET
INTERMEDIATE WET
OIL WET
Most reservoir rocks exhibit intermediate wettability. However, many reservoirs exhibit strongly water-wet or oil-wet behavior. A number of other laboratory techniques are also utilized. Amott's method is very popular - it uses a representative core that is either obtained under preserved conditions or is pickled with reservoir fluids for a long time to insure that native state is re-stored. The method subjects the core to an imbibition-drainage process, which duplicates the reservoir processes of oil accumulation and waterflood displacement.
Accurate assessment of reservoir wettability is very important as it has a pronounced effect on: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Initial Distribution of Oil and Water Connate Water Saturation Fluid Flow through the Reservoir Residual Oil Sanitation Production Performance Formation Resistivity
1. INITIAL DISTRIBUTION OF OIL AND WATER

The solid surfaces in the water-wet rock are totally covered with a film of water. In addition, smaller pores are totally filled with water.
WATER WET
The solid surfaces in the oil-wet rock are totally covered with a thin film of oil. The smaller pores are still filled with water.
OIL WET
. 19
Section 2
2. CONNATE WATER SATURATION

Connate water saturation in the water-wet rock is around 20 to 35% and around 5 to 15% in an oil-wet rock.
1000
Sandstone
Air Permeability: md
Water Wet Rock (Nugget Sand) 100
10 Oil Wet Rock (Springer Sand)
1.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Water Saturation: Percent

Figure 2- 8
3. FLUID FLOW THROUGH THE RESERVOIR Strongly Water-Wet Rock

Water prefers to wet solid surfaces and thereby advances along the walls of the pore spaces. With continual advancement, it pushes oil from the edges until water cusps in at the pore exit. It then retains some oil as disconnected, isolated droplets in the pore centers. This oil saturation is called 'Residual Oil Saturation to Water - Sorw.
Oil Oil Oil
Water
Water
Figure 2- 9
Water
20
Strongly Oil-Wet Rock

Water prefers to move through the pore centers pushing oil ahead of it. With continual advancement, it drags oil from the edges until it establishes a continuous path through the pores. It then retains oil as a connected film covering the solid surfaces. This oil saturation is called 'Residual Oil Saturation to Waterflood - Sorw'.
Oil
Oil
Oil
Water
Water
Figure 2- 10
Water
4. RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION TO WATERFLOOD

Sorw for a water-wet rock is of the order of 25 - 40% and in the 30-45% for an oil-wet rock. Sorw is not a function of water throughput or applied pressure differential for a water-wet rock, but is strongly dependent on the two for an oil-wet rock.
5. PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE
The idealized production performance (oil recovery and water-cut versus time) of a strongly water-wet and oil-wet reservoir is compared below.
Strongly Water-Wet Rock

Large oil recovery prior to water breakthrough Relatively small increase in oil recovery post breakthrough Water-cut increases sharply after water breakthrough Total oil recovery is essentially independent of the volume of water injected and the applied flooding pressure gradients
21
Section 2
CUMULATIVE INJECTION, PVI

Figure 2- 11
Strongly Oil- Wet Rock

Lower oil recovery prior to water breakthrough Substantial increase in oil recovery post breakthrough Water-cut increases gradually after water breakthrough Total oil recovery is dependent on the volume of water injected and the applied flooding pressure gradients
CUMULATIVE INJECTION, PVI

Figure 2- 12
22
WATER -OIL RATIO
OIL RECOVERY
WATER -OIL RATIO
OIL RECOVERY
Waterflood recovery is dependent on rock wettability

The generalized plot of Expected Ultimate Recovery versus rock wettability shows that for similar oil/water viscosity ratio floods, recovery is higher from a water-wet rock than an oil-wet rock. It also shows that recovery from a neutral-wet rock could even be higher than the two extreme cases.
EUR, %OOIP 0
90 CONTACT ANGLE
Figure 2- 13
180
23
Section 2
FLUID DISTRIBUTION IN A RESERVOIR

One of the most important factors responsible for the success of a waterflood is the fluid saturation (oil, water, gas) and their distribution in the reservoir at the start of the project. Saturation distribution is seldom known (except under the initial conditions prior to production) and its accuracy is always a suspect. There are many reasons for this: 1. Initial static distribution is not exactly known, especially in a mixed lithology reservoir. 2. Reservoir development prior to waterflood is not uniform. Hence, the production performance is varies both areally and vertically. Regional drift of fluids inside the reservoir is hard to quantify. 3. Even with a dedicated effort, the sampling inadequacy poses a major handicap. Since this information is essential as the starting point in a waterflood project, it has to be obtained with reasonable degree of accuracy. Resources required are: a multi-disciplinary team, a dedicated effort, and commitment of time, money, and resources.
At the start of waterflood

Estimate of saturation averages is rather straightforward. However, it requires that: 1. good estimates are available for pore volume and original oil-in-place, 2. accurate production records have been kept, 3. water influx rates can be estimated with accuracy, and 4. reservoir drive mechanisms can be assessed. Classical reservoir engineering methods are employed. The average oil saturation in the reservoir at the start of a WF is primarily related to the primary drive mechanism, as shown by the figure below:
24
100 Reservoir Pressure, % Original Pressure

1 Liquid and Rock Expansion 2 Solution Gas Drive 3 Gas Cap Expansion 4 Water Influx 5 Gravity Drainage
80
60
4
40
20
10
20
30
40
50
60
Recovery Efficiency, % OOIP 100 90 80 70 60 50 40
Remaining Oil Saturation, %

Figure 2- 14
Mapping of saturations is possible if: 1. A history-matched reservoir simulation model is available. Accuracy hinges on reservoir description, however. 2. A well logging program is the best approach. Key wells are selected and appropriate logs are run to calculate saturation distributions around producers. 3. Coring of new wells is another approach. However, the coring program (cutting, retrieval, preservation, storage, testing) has to be designed such that meaningful interpretation is possible.
25
Section 2
FLUID DISTRIBUTION IN A RESERVOIR UNDER INITIAL (STATIC) CONDITIONS

The simplified (idealized) model below depicts the initial distribution of fluids in a reservoir.
Gas-oil contact Closure Oil-water contact
GAS OIL
Gas cap Oil zone
Leading Edge Spill point
WATER
Trailing Edge
WATER
ING LEAD OW C GOC
LING OW C TRAI
Figure 2- 15
This distribution is controlled by equilibrium between the gravitational and capillary forces. Gravitational Force: It causes fluid segregation into gas above, oil in the middle and water at the bottom.
Force = 0.433 ( W - O ) h
Capillary Force: It causes the wetting fluid (water in general) to occupy the smaller pores while the non-wetting fluids (oil and gas) occupy the larger pores.
Force =
2 OW COS R
A realistic model of Depth vs. Water Saturation is shown in the figure below:
26
GAS GAS TRANSITION ZONE PC OIL
DEPTH OIL-WATER TRANSITION ZONE
WATER 0
100
SWC
SW
Initial Oil-Water Contact (@Pc = Threshhold Value) Producing Oil-Water Contact (@Sw = 1 Sorw) Dry Oil-Water Contact (@Sw = Swc)
Figure 2- 16
The length of oil-water transition zone is a function of pore size distribution. If pores are of uniform size (higher permeability reservoirs), transition zone length is very small. For a wide pore size distribution (lower permeability reservoirs), transition zone may cover the entire reservoir thickness. The oil-water transition zone is of great interest in designing a waterflood project. There is no single definition of oil-water contact (OWC). An arbitrary choice is made depending upon the local practice and the purpose of the analysis. NOTE: Capillary Forces have a major effect on initial distribution of water in the reservoir. HOWEVER, they will have minimal effect on water movement during a waterflood where viscous forces and high Pressure Gradients dominate.
27
Section 2
Methods used for establishing initial fluid distribution are: 1. Direct Method Production testing: well is production or DST tested over successively known depth intervals
2. Indirect Methods Coring: conventional core analysis is of limited use. Logging: resistivity and porosity logs are used. RFT/MDT: spot pressures are measured at known depths along the well path. Only fluid contacts are established. Laboratory Capillary Pressure Tests: representative preserved cores are used to measure capillary pressure - water saturation data utilizing the following methods: Porous Diaphragm Method Mercury Injection Method Centrifuge Method
Test is made under conditions that duplicate the reservoir process of interest Drainage or Imbibition. Drainage: The wetting phase fluid is displaced from the pores by the non-wetting fluid (Initial oil migration in the reservoir). Imbibition: The non-wetting phase fluid is displaced from the pores by the wetting phase fluid (waterflooding in a water-wet reservoir).
28
CAPILLARY PRESSURE DATA FOR WATERFLOODING

Waterflooding results in increasing water saturation in the reservoir as oil is displaced. The laboratory-derived capillary pressure curve measured under the condition of increasing wetting phase saturation is called "Imbibition" and is the data that is needed as input to reservoir simulator to model the waterflood process. The figure below shows a typical imbibition capillary pressure curve for a water displacement process in rocks with different wettability preferences.
INTERMEDIATE WETTABILITY ROCK
Drainage P C = P O - PW Spontaneous Imbibition

0 1
SWC
SW Forced Imbibition
Sorw
Figure 2- 17
29
Section 2
STRONGLY WATER-WET ROCK

WF in a water-wet rock is an Imbibition process as Sw increases.
P C = P O - PW
SWC
SW
Sorw
Figure 2- 18
STRONGLY OIL-WET ROCK

WF in an oil-wet rock is a Drainage process as So decreases.
P C = P O - PW
SWC
SW
Sorw
\Figure 2-19
30
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
Relative permeability curves are the 'road maps' to production rate and hydrocarbon recovery. Hence, it is of paramount importance that data is as representative as possible. Reservoir pore space is generally filled with two (oil and water) or with three fluids (oil, water and gas). Flow of any one fluid in the presence of other fluids is treated by the concept of relative permeability. Relative permeability is defined as the ratio of the Effective Permeability to a fluid to the Absolute Permeability of the rock. The value ranges between 0 and 1 (or 0 to 100%). K RW = Kw K K RO = Ko K
This is the most important key data for all calculations dealing with water drive reservoirs, waterflood projects, and water coning - Hence, it is imperative that the data used is reliable. The following guidelines are recommended. 1. Either use a preserved core or make sure that wettability is re-stored in the laboratory. 2. Either use the reservoir live fluids (cumbersome) or use fluids with laboratory oilwater viscosity ratio matched to the reservoir condition viscosity ratio.
31
Section 2
OIL-WATER RELATIVE PERMEABILITY

A typical oil-water relative permeability relationship is shown in the figure below:
1.0 0.9
Relative Permeability to Oil
0.7
Kro
0.6
Krw
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
SWC
Sorw
Sw, Water Saturation

Figure 2- 20
Swc = Connate (Irreducible) Water Saturation Sorw = Residual Oil Saturation (where Kro = 0) at Swmax (Maximum Water Saturation) (Krw)Sorw = End Point Relative Permeability to Water (Kro)Swc = End Point Relative Permeability to Oil
32
Relative Permeability to Water
0.8
Since hysteresis plays an important role, the relative permeability is also influenced by the direction of change. The figure below is a typical example of this behavior.
100
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY, %
80
60
DRAINAGE
40
20
IMBIBITION
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 WETTING PHASE SATURATION, %PV

Figure 2- 21
The water (wetting phase) relative permeability is generally not direction dependent it is a function of its saturation alone. The oil (non-wetting phase) relative permeability is highly direction dependent. At any given water saturation, it is lower for the imbibition process than for the drainage process. Many times hysteresis effect is not modeled in reservoir simulations.
METHODS OF MEASUREMENTS
Relative permeability data is measured in the laboratory by one of the following methods: Unsteady State Method, Steady State Method, and Centrifuge Method. These testing methods differ from each other in the quantity and quality of the generated data, and therefore in the time required and the cost incurred.
33
Section 2
Important Details of Direct Methods

Unsteady State Method The experimental procedure is depicted below. Here, water is injected into a 100% saturated (with oil and connate water) core at a constant pressure differential. The oil and water production rates are continually measured until only the injected water is produced.
Pi
Po
Water
Oil & Water Constant P

Figure 2- 22
Advantage: Takes only a few hours to complete the test. Disadvantage: Calculations to convert production data into relative permeability data are involved.
Steady State (Penn. State) Method The experimental procedure is depicted below. Here, water and oil at a known ratio are injected into a 100% saturated (with oil and connate water) core until saturation and pressure differential across the core stabilize. This step is repeated with different known oil and water injection ratios.
Pi Oil Water
Figure 2- 23
Po Oil Water
Advantage: Calculations to convert production data into relative permeability are simple. Disadvantage: This procedure takes a long time.
34
Centrifuge Method
This is a much faster method. It measures relative permeability of the phase that is produced during the test.
GRADUATED COLLECTOR
SLEEVE
CORE COMPRESSION WASHERS
FLOW LINE
Figure 2- 24
Comparison of the Methods

1. Water-oil relative permeability data from the steady state method covers the entire range of saturation change. 2. Since the saturation range is Limited in the unsteady-state method, extrapolation of the data is needed. 3. Data obtained from the centrifuge method is about the same within the experimental accuracy. 4. Agreement between gas-oil relative permeability data from gas- flood and centrifuge method is quite good. 5. The centrifuge data provides a better estimate of residual liquid saturation as the displacement process may be subjected to higher pressure gradients.
35
Section 2
100
10
WATER
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
STEADY-STATE METHOD UNSTEADY-STATE METHOD
1.0
0.1 OIL 0.01
20
40
60
80
100
WATER SATURATION
Figure 2- 25
The steady-state method is generally considered to be superior to the other two methods.
36
Rock wettability has a pronounced influence on the shape of the relative permeability curves and on the end-point values. Figure below demonstrates this. Strongly Water - Wet Rock
1.0 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY, FRACTION
S wc = 25-40% Srw K ro
SORW SWC
0.8
= 0.1 - 0.2 0.85
0.6
OIL
S W 50% at K rw = K ro
0.4
0.2
WAT ER
WATER SATURATION, %PV
Strongly Oil - Wet Rock

RELATIVE PERMEABILITY, FRACTION
1.0
S wc < 15% Srw K ro

SORW SWC
0.8
0.3 0.7
S W 50% at K rw = K ro
0.4
0.2
20 40 60 80 WATER SATURATION, %PV
WA TER
0.6
OIL
100
37
Section 2
Maintaining a core in its native (un-altered) state for SCAL laboratory tests is very important. While it is a pains-taking activity and an expensive undertaking, it is absolutely essential to the accuracy of recovery forecasting (project performance) and the project profitability. The Extraction process - where core is cleaned off its oil and water and dried - may alter the native wettability of the core. The Restoration process - where the extracted cores are saturated with water and oil - may partially restore the wettability character. Restoration may get better if the core is aged with time.
PRESERVED
KRW
RESTORED
EXTRACTED
Figure 2- 26
OIL-GAS-WATER RELATIVE PERMEABILITY

Simultaneous flow of oil, gas, and water occurs at only a small combination of saturations due to the mobility (K/ ) contrast between the fluids. The fluid distribution is rapidly arranged as: WATER OIL BANK GAS W/O O/G Rel Perm Rel Perm
38
A typical three-phase diagram is shown below:
Figure 2- 27
Laboratory tests to obtain this data are very cumbersome and expensive. Hence, a number of 'probabilistic' models have been developed to estimate three-phase data that is needed for the reservoir simulation studies. These models (Stones Correlation) require the routinely available two-phase water-oil and gas-oil relative permeability data.
Important Details of Indirect Methods:

Data from Analogous Reservoir A fairly good source if similarity of reservoir type, depositional setting, fluid properties, and development strategy is established. Published Correlations Many published correlations (between relative permeability and capillary pressure) are available. Their use is highly questionable.
39
Section 2
Field Production History Production history of a reservoir can also be utilized in estimating the field average or well average effective permeability relationship, provided the drive mechanism is well understood. Its use is however limited because the data becomes available after the fact.
CAUTION!!! Fluid flow behavior and oil recovery estimate are a direct function of the relative permeability relationship. One must make sure to utilize the relationships which are obtained from carefully designed laboratory tests on cores which are known to maintain wettability character during the coring, shipment, storage, and testing processes.
CURRENT THOUGHTS ON OIL-WATER RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENT

Steady-State method is better than the Unsteady-State method as it provides data over the entire saturation range. Unsteady-State method results in too high residual oil saturation because of insufficient flooding. The Centrifuge method provides a better estimate of the residual oil saturation. SHELL recommends a combination method where Steady-State method provides relative permeability data and Centrifuge method provides the residual oil saturation. Relative permeability should be made under reservoir conditions using imbibition procedure on representative preserved or restored-state (aged?) cores. In the past, non-preserved cores were often used. These cores generally exhibited waterwet behavior due to changes introduced during coring, retrieval, storage, and testing processes. Field examples below show significant changes in the residual oil saturation values, suggesting higher displacement efficiencies. Brent Dunlin Schiehallion San Francisco Lekhwair Maui Current 15% 15 14 10 5 10 Old 28% 25 - 30 29 >=40 28 28
40
Volumetric sweep efficiencies need re-assessment in older waterfloods where displacement efficiencies were based on older estimates of residual oil saturations.
41
Section 2
RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY
B A
Figure 2- 28
Sealing or Non-Sealing Faults? High or Low Permeability? Fractures? Vertical Communication? Reservoir Quality Varies?
Layer 1 Layer 6 Layer 2 Layer 3

La ye La r5 ye r6
OWC
Layer 7
Layer 7
Layer 4 Layer 5
Localized vs. Regional Features Pay vs. Non-Pay? Aquifer Extent?
Layer 6
Figure 2- 29
42
Heterogeneity is the spatial variation of the reservoir properties. It can occur at various levels. Large Scale Heterogeneity may be due to: Reservoir Compartmentalization Presence of Faults Presence of Fracture clusters Large Permeability Contrast
Small Scale heterogeneity is due to: Shape and size of the sediments Deposition history of the sediments Subsequent changes due to digenesis and tectonics
Heterogeneity is the most difficult attribute to quantify; but has the greatest effect on the efficiency of the WF processes. While all reservoir properties may vary, both areally and vertically, change in permeability values are most drastic (many fold changes are encountered). Therefore, vertical heterogeneity is in general much greater than areal heterogeneity.
Permeability
Porosity
Depth
Depth
Figure 2- 30
43
Section 2
Two methods were introduced during the 40's and 50's for the quantification of vertical heterogeneity on a scale of 0 (homogeneous) to 1.0 (heterogeneous). These are: 1. Lorenz Coefficient 2. Dykstra & Parsons Permeability Variation Factor These were utilized in estimating vertical sweep efficiency of a WF project. Areal heterogeneity was handled by conventional interpolation and extrapolation methods, such as: 1. The Assumed Trends 2. The Inverse Distance Method 3. The Inverse Distance Squared Method Currently, numerous geostatistical techniques are being employed.
GEOSTATISTICAL TECHNIQUES
The conventional technique for mapping a property value is to contour the known values and/or the estimated values, while incorporating geological trends, depositional features, and personal experience of the user. Hence, these techniques are highly subjective. The newest technique with a great deal of promise and non-subjectivity is geostatistical treatment. It uses spatial correlations (variograms are relations of measured values quantifying variation with distance and direction) to estimate the value of the property at all XYZ locations. Additional soft data is incorporated honoring geological trends, depositional features, and personal experience of the user.
44
RESERVOIR COMPARTMENTALIZATION ITS ASSESSMENT

Many reservoirs are compartmentalized into separate blocks. Each block may have its own oilwater contact and may contain an oil of different composition than the other blocks. Barriers such as faults shown below may divide the reservoir into blocks that: May not communicate with one another at all, or May not communicate at the beginning but may start communicating under the production-induced pressure differentials between the blocks.
PLATFORM
TopBrent structure map
Figure 2- 31
The project economics is impacted if compartmentalization information is not correct. Initial development planning (number of wells and their locations and surface facilities requirements) is dependent on this. Initially, only the static data of various kinds is available. It must be analyzed to gain some insight into the inter-block communication. Later on, dynamic (pressure and production) data becomes available which is far more conclusive.
45
Section 2
The commonly employed methods are described below in detail. 1. RFT/MDT data These data provide gas gradients in the gas cap, oil gradient in the oil leg, water gradient in the water leg, and depth of free water level in each block. 2. PVT data The oil density data under reservoir conditions (from PVT analysis) is compared from wells in various blocks. The difference in density at similar depths can only exist if there is no inter-block communication. 3. Well Test Data Interpretation of long-term pressure drawdown/buildup test yields information on the presence of lateral barriers within the well drainage radius. While such information is non-unique, inferences may be drawn. 4. GC Fingerprinting Oil samples from various wells are analyzed for C 10 - C 12 components. These analyses are compared statistically using cluster analysis to look for similarities and differences between blocks. 5. Oil Maturity Indexing Both oil samples and solvent-extracts of cores are analyzed for geo-chemical attributes that are related to hydrocarbon maturity. These attributes are compared to look for similarities and differences between the blocks. 6. Residual Salt Analysis (RSA) The salts present in the non-preserved conventional cores are leached out by ultrapure distilled water and analyzed for 87SR/86SR isotopic ratio. Difference in ratios indicates compartmentalization. 7. Fault Seal Modeling Normalized Displacement ratio of fault displacement to reservoir thickness is computed for each fault from the seismic data to determine what portion of sands are in communication across the fault.
Note: All single source evaluations provide only a partial answer due to their individual limitations of areal coverage and measurement sensitivity. Hence, integration of partial answers is needed to fully evaluate compartmentalization. Accurate assessment is possible only after dynamic data becomes available.
46
VERTICAL HETEROGENEITY - LORENZ COEFFICIENT

List the data (k, ) fore each interval of thickness h. Calculate kh and h and arrange in a descending kh order. The following quantities are then calculated. 1. Cumulative Fractional Pore Volume (h / htot)
2. Cumulative Fractional Flow Capacity (kh / khtot) A linear scale plot of 2 vs. 1 is made (shown below).
1.0 B C
Fraction of Total Flow Capacity ( kh)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 A 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1.0 0.1
D
Fraction of Total Volume, h
Lorenz Coefficient, L = Area ABCA / Area ADCA HOMOGENEOUS HETEROGENEOUS
L
Figure 2- 32
1.0
The value of L for the successful floods is in the range of 0.2 to 0.4
47
Section 2
VERTICAL HETEROGENEITY - PERMEABILITY VARIATION: V

Dykstra & Parson introduced a statistical measure of reservoir heterogeneity and correlated it with Vertical Sweep Efficiency. List data (k) for each sample. Arrange in descending order of permeability (k). For each value, calculate the % of number of values that are larger. Plot Perm vs. "% higher" on log probability paper & fit straight line. Such a plot is shown below.
100 80 60 40 Sample Permeability, MD 20 k
10 8 6 4 3 2 1
1 2
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5
Portion of Total Sample Having Higher Permeability
HOMOGENEOUS
HETEROGENEOUS
L
Figure 2- 33
1.0
This correlation was developed for California sandstone reservoirs and is applicable in a range of mobility ratio floods at various stages (at various water-cuts) in stratified reservoirs. It is widely used for this purpose in conventional forecasting of volumetric sweep efficiency of waterflooding. Both L and V values are non-unique since various property distributions can result in the same numerical value.
48
Note: Ordering of property values in descending or ascending order is not reflective of real situation. Hence, this method should not be used for layering the reservoir for flow calculations.
The figure below shows: On the right, the actual permeability profile of a reservoir On the left, the permeability profile arranged in ascending order
Depth
Depth
k
Figure 2- 34
It is obvious that the two representations will manifest different behavior in a WF project.
It should be noted that for STATISTICAL PURPOSES, often different permeability zones are arranged in descending k-h order (descending permeability if each zone is defined by the same thickness, h) in order to calculate cumulative permeability thickness, or cumulative flow contribution. For example, to set-up Lorenz and Dykstra-Parsons calculations, zones must be ordered like this.
49
Section 2
AREAL HETEROGENEITY
Areal heterogeneity has been handled by conventional interpolation and extrapolation means. These are described below:
THE ASSUMED TRENDS METHOD

Property distribution is contoured on the basis of a known trend. It is quite an effective method in the hands of a person who is well versed in the regional depositional Trends.
THE INVERSE DISTANCE METHOD

The unknown value is estimated on the basis of weight factors associated with the entire data set. The weight factors are calculated such that the influence of a known data point is inversely proportional to its distance from the point of the unknown value.
1 d i = n i 1 i=1 d i
Where: dj n i VX = = = = distance between the measured value and location of interest number of nearby points weight factor unknown value at point x
VX =
V
i i=1
50
THE INVERSE DISTANCE SQUARED METHOD

The unknown value is estimated on the basis of weight factors associated with the entire data set. The weight factors are calculated such that the influence of a known data-point is inversely proportional to the square of its distance from the point of the unknown value.
1 d i = i 2 n 1 i=1 d i
i = 1
NOT COMPLETED
NOT PENETRATED
PERFORATIONS
Figure 2- 35
51
Section 2
RESERVOIR CONNECTIVITY & PAY CONTINUITY & FLOODABILITY

Reservoir continuity and pay connectivity are the two most important factors that control displacement processes such as waterflooding. Figure 2-36 shows two major problems in a waterflooding project, especially in lenticular and fluvial reservoirs. Possible indicators of these problems include: Poor Inter-Well Correlation Low Net to Gross Thickness Ratio Lower than expected Well Injectivity or Productivity Large Difference in Reservoir Pressure from PBU & PFO Tests
Quantitative assessment is difficult at best because of the directional nature of flow. The concept of floodable pay is demonstrated below:
Li
A
Hi
B C
Figure 2- 36
Floodable Pay A: Partially Floodable Pay B:
Pay that completely participates in the flood. All the available pore space is contacted by the encroaching fluid. Pay that partially participates in the flood. Some of the pore space is not contacted and the resident hydrocarbons are partially trapped by the encroaching fluid. Pay that does not effectively participate in the flood process. The resident hydrocarbons remain essentially trapped and unrecovered.
Non-Floodable Pay C:
The pay continuity is quantified by the following Equation:
52
PERCENT CONTINUITY =
EFFECTIVE HL TOTAL HL
There are two common methods for establishing the pay continuity in a reservoir. These fall under two categories: 1. Tracer tests 2. Multiwell pressure interference tests A tracer used in a waterflood project should meet most of the following criteria: safe, easy to handle, environmentally friendly, water soluble, essentially insoluble in oil, non-adsorbent on rock and metals, chemically inert, detectable in small amounts, inexpensive. Tracers used are of the following types: (1) water soluble Alcohols, (2) inorganic salts such as Ammonium, Sodium, Potassium, (3) fluorescent dyes, and (4) Radioactive substances such as Tritiated water. Single well pressure (PBU/PFO) tests and multi-well pressure (Pulse/Interference) tests are the best way to assess zonal connectivity and connectivity, to locate fractures/faults, and to assess directional property trends in a reservoir. There are many ways to establish reservoir continuity qualitatively, once reservoir data is available and production trends are established. 1. Regional Pressure and Production Trends 2. Ratio of OOIP estimate from Volumetric and MBE If this ratio is = 1, all pay is participating. If this ratio is < 1, some pay is isolated and not participating. 3. Ratio of EUR (estimated ultimate recovery) from a simulation model study (utilizing a history-matched model) and the decline curve analysis. If the two values are close, all pay is participating. If simulation estimate is greater than the decline curve analysis, some pay is not connected to the producing wells. Continuity/connectivity between two wells can be quantitatively measured and plotted versus the horizontal distance. Figure 2-37 below shows such a relationship for the Means San Andres reservoir (under a pattern waterflood earlier and now under a pattern CO2 - Flood) in West Texas.
53
Section 2
100
80 PERCENT CONTINUITY
CONTINUOUS PAY FLOODABLE PAY
60
40
20
1320' 2640 3960 5280
0 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN WELLS - FEET

Figure 2- 37
Note: Sands may not be correlative between wells, but they may still be connected (in the 3-D pore space).
FLOODABILITY
Floodability of pay is a very important aspect in a WF process. To be floodable, a pay interval must be: 1. Continuous between injector and producer 2. Injection supported 3. Effectively completed in a producer Hence, all the continuous pay is not necessarily floodable. The two-well schematic below illustrates the difference between continuity and floodability.
54
PRODUCER
INJECTOR A B C INJECTION SUPPORTED = 33%
COMPLETED = 50%
D E F G
RESERVOIR CONTINUITY = 67 % RESERVOIR FLOODABILITY = 17 %
Figure 2- 38
Layers A, D, F, and H are geologically continuous. They together contain 2/3 of the inter-well pore volume. Layers C and H are injection supported. Layers D and H are completed effectively in the producer. Layer H is the only one that is effectively floodable.
55
Section 2
EMPIRICAL LAWS OF HETEROGENEITY

1. All reservoirs are heterogeneous in rock and fluid properties When we know little about them, we assume them to be homogeneous 2. The more we get to know them, the more heterogeneous they become Heterogeneity is proportional to the amount of time, effort and money spent 3. Heterogeneity has major impact on reservoir risks and uncertainty related to: Volumes of hydrocarbons-in-place Recovery Efficiency Well Productivity Reservoir Performance
4. Unless you walk a mile or two along the outcrop of the reservoir formation, you will have little appreciation of rock heterogeneity
56
HYDROCARBON CLASSIFICATION
Hydrocarbons are classified with respect to their state under the reservoir Pressure and Temperature conditions. Surface conditions (P & T) are also considered when classifying the production. Hydrocarbon systems in the reservoir are divided into five main categories; 1. Dry Gas 2. Wet Gas 3. Gas Condensate 4. Volatile (high shrinkage) Oil 5. Black (low shrinkage) Oil A simple sub-division on the basis of solution gas-oil ration is given below.
Near Critical
Bubblepoint Systems
Dewpoint Systems
DRY GAS
WET GAS GAS CONDENSATE VOLATILE OIL BLACK OIL 100 1000 10000 100000
Original Gas-Liquid Ratio SCF/BBL Stock Tank Liquid

Figure 2- 39
Black Oils and Volatile Oils are candidates for a WF project. A volatile oil requires more serious consideration due to its nature of rapidly changing into gas when pressure falls below the bubble point pressure. Gas reservoirs (dry, rich, or condensate) are never intentionally waterflooded, as a large fraction of the gas is left trapped in the reservoir due to the water-wet nature of the rock.
57
Section 2
CANDIDATE RESERVOIRS FOR WATERFLOODING
Dry Wet Retrograde Saturated Under Saturated Gas Gas Gas Volatile Black Black Heavy Reservoir Reservoir Condensate Oil Oil Oil/Tar Oil
Gas Saturation: 100% 100%
100-70%
0-60%
0-30%
0%
0%
PROJECTS COUNT
Figure 2- 40
58
PHASE BEHAVIOR Classification of a Multi-Component System
WF TARGET OILS
Critical Point C
GAS
Cricondenbar (T)
w De
Volume % Liquid
0% 10 Bu
le bb % 90
L int Po
oc
us
i nt Po Lo cu
% 80
% 60
% 40
uid L iq
% 20 8%
Separator
TEMPERATURE
Near Critical Phase - Behavior

Figure 2- 41
Cricondentherm (M)
PRESSURE
59
Section 2
Definitions
Bubble Point Curve: The locus of the points of pressure and temperature at which the first bubble of gas is formed in passing from the liquid to the two-phase region. Dew Point Curve: The locus of the points of pressure and temperature at which the first droplet of liquid is formed in passing from the vapor to the two--phase region. Two-Phase Region: That region enclosed by the bubble point line and dew point line wherein gas and liquid co-exist in equilibrium. Critical Point: That state of pressure and temperature at which the intensive properties of each phase are identical. Also, the junction of the bubble point and dew point curve. Critical Temperature: The temperature at the critical point. Critical Pressure: The pressure at the critical point. Iso Vol or Iso Volume Lines (quality lines): The loci of points of equal liquid volume percent within the two-phase region that intersect at the identical point.. Saturation Pressure: Bubble point pressure (for liquid systems) or dew point pressure (for gaseous systems).
60
BLACK (LOW SHRINKAGE) OIL
A Liquid
Mole % Liq 100
Critical point
Pressure
A B
e Lin
75
RESERVOIR RESERVOIR SEPARATOR
-po
int
po int
Lin e
C
Gas
Bu bb le
50
25
Temperature
Conditions
Critical point lies to the right of the Cricondenbar Quality Lines are closely spaced near the Dew Point line
GOR
Production Behavior During Pressure Depletion

Produced fluids in the separators are in two phases Substantial amount of liquids recovery GOR <1,000 SCF/STB Oil Gravity < 45 API Color is black to dark brown/green Producing GOR continues to increase with time, as shown on the right Oil gravity decreases gradually during most of the producing life. Later in the life (when the producing gas becomes wet), gravity increases due to the addition of gas condensate to the oil
De w-
TIME
API
TIME
Production Behavior During Waterflooding

Waterflood projects have been initiated at various pressure levels ranging between A and B. Their performance differs from one another.
61
Section 2
VOLATILE (HIGH SHRINKAGE) OIL
A Liquid
Mole % Liq 100
Critical point
Pressure
75
A B C
RESERVOIR RESERVOIR SEPARATOR
50
B C
25
Gas
Temperature
Conditions
Critical Point lies to the right of the Cricondenbar Reservoir temperature is closer to the Critical temperature
GOR
Production Behavior During Pressure Depletion

Produced fluids in the separators are in two phases Low liquid recoveries GOR <1,750 SCF/STB Oil Gravity 40 Degrees API Some color FVF > 2 RB/STB Producing GOR increases with time but far less than for the Black Oils Oil gravity increases gradually with the addition of condensates from the gas into the produced oil phase
TIME
API
TIME
Production Behavior During Waterflooding

Waterflood projects have been initiated at various pressure levels ranging between A and Bubble Point Pressure (or not very far from there).
62
Released and greatly expanded gas

x1 0
Released gas
Oil produced to surface undergoes pressure and temperature reduction E F P3 Temp P4 TM
A P0 P1 P2 B C D
Pressure
P3 P4 F TM
Temp
TA
Temperature
Oil
Oil Released gas p
Oil Expanded gas Previously released Released gas
B Reservoir pressure Declines with production P0 TA
+
P1 TA
p D
+
P2 TA
Figure 2- 42. Volume Relationship for a black oil system.
63
Section 2
PVT PROPERTIES OF BLACK OIL
Rsi
SOLUTION GAS-OIL RATIO SCF/STB

RS = volume of gas produced at surface at standard conditions
volume of oil entering stock tank at standard conditions
Rs
pb
Pi
OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR BBL/STB

Bo
BO = volume of oil + dissolved gas leaving reservoir at reservoir conditions

volume of oil entering stock tank at standard conditions
pb
Pi
OIL VISCOSITY POISE
pb
Pi
64
Relationship Between Surface & Reservoir Conditions
OIL
SOLUTION GAS
WATER
SURFACE CONDITIONS 14.7 PSIA, 60f
FREE GAS
SOLUTION GAS
SOLUTION GAS FREE GAS EXPANSION
OIL SHRINKAGE
WATER SHRINKAGE
BOTTOMHOLE CONDITIONS = PR, TR
OIL
FREE GAS
WATER
Figure 2- 43
65
Section 2
Oil Formation Volume Factor = Bo
Units: BBL / STB
This is the volume in BBL that one STB of oil and its dissolved solution gas (Rso) occupies in the reservoir at P and T. Water Formation Volume Factor = Bw Units: BBL/STB
This is the volume in BBL that one STB of water and its dissolved solution gas (Rsw) occupies in the reservoir at reservoir P and T. Gas Formation Volume Factor = Bg Units; CF/SCF
This is the volume in Cubic Feet that one Standard Cubic Feet of gas occupies in the reservoir at reservoir P and T. Solution Gas-Oil Ratio - Rs Units; SCF/STB
This is the volume of gas in SCF that is dissolved in one STB of oil under reservoir P and T. Two-phase Formation Volume Factor = Bt Bt = Bo + (Rsi - Rs) Bg This in the volume in the reservoir (P&T) that is occupied by one STB of oil and its dissolved gas (P&T) plus the free gas evolving out of the oil due to pressure drop from Pb to P. Units: BBL/STB
66
OILFIELD WATERS
FORMATION WATER
The naturally occurring water in the reservoir pore space at discovery is called the formation water or the interstitial water. Since it has been associated with the particular reservoir rock and crude oil over a long period of time, it is in the state of complete chemical equilibrium.
INJECTION WATER
Injection waters are procured from various ground and underground sources. Ground Water; Sea, River, Lakes Underground Water: Shallow Aquifers, Recycled Produced water from oil reservoirs Four properties of interest are: 1. Dissolve Salts (TDS in parts per million) Cations: Anions: Fatty Acids: Na +, K+, NH4+, Ca++, Mg++, Ba++, Sr++, Fe++ Cl-, Br-, OH-, HCO3-, CO3--SO4--, BO2--, CO3--, PO4-Formic, Acetic
2. Dissolved Gases CO2, H2S, CH4, O2 3. Suspended Solids of various sizes and concentration. 4. pH Value Below are illustrative examples of various waters from a Saudi Arabian project. Ions Arab-D Produced Water 26,339 6,668 1,228 648 55,263 0 433 0 90,580 Wasia Aquifer 2,206 560 116 1,099 3,800 0 206 0 7,987 Ras. Tanura Sea Water 13,200 516 1,690 3,240 23,700 6 103 0 42,500
Sodium Calcium Magnesium Sulfate Chloride Carbonate Bicarbonate Hydroxide Total dissolved solids
67
Section 2
WATER PROPERTIES
The following physical properties are of interest: 1. Density of Water is 1.0 gm/cc (350 Pound/BBL) 2. Amount of Dissolved Natural Gas in Water, Rsw Solubility of natural gas in water is quite low Average of 10 to 20 SCF/STB 3. Formation Volume Factor of Water, Bw Assume equal to 1.0 RBBL/STB 4. Compressibility of Water, Cw 5. Viscosity of Water
COMPRESSIBILITY OW WATER, cw x 10
4.0 cw = 3.6 1 V v P T
2.0 1.8 1.6

viscosity of saline water (60,000 ppm) and temperature
3.2
ABSOLUTE VISCOSITY, CP
1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6
Curve 1, at 14.7 psia; 2, at 14.2 psia
2.8
100 0 200 300 0 0 40 0 5000 0 60 00
3, at 7100 psia; 4, at vapor pressure
2.4 60 100 140 180 TEMPERATURE, F 220 260
3 4
RATIO: SOLUTION COMPRESSIBILITY WATER COMPRESSIBILITY
CORRECTION FOR GAS IN SOLUTION 1.3
0.4 0.2 0 0 2
1.2
1.1
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
TEMPERATURE, F
1.0 0 5 10 15 20 GAS-WATER RATIO, Cu Ft/Bbl 25
68
CHEMISTRY OF WATER MOVEMENT THROUGH THE RESERVOIR

As the injection water (varying concentration of dissolved salts) moves through the reservoir, it contacts the formation water and hydrocarbons. Stripping takes place and water picks up some light ends, CO2 and H2S, as shown in the figure below.
WATER IS INJECTED TO MAINTAIN PRESSURE AND DISPLACE OIL OIL AND WATER ARE PRODUCED
WATER-SOLUBLE COMPONENTS ARE REDISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THE OIL AND WATER PHASES
CO2
H2S
C1 C2
OIL
C3
WATER
Figure 2- 44
Solubility of natural gas in water is a function of temperature, pressure and TDS.
69
Section 2
24 SOLUBILITY OF NATURAL GAS IN WATER, CU. FT/BBL

PS 5000 4500 4000 IA
1.0 0.9 Solubility of natural gas in brine Solubility of natural gas in pure water 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
25 0 20 15 0 10 0 50 0
20
16
3500 3000
2500
12
2000
1500 8 1000
0.2
500 PSIA 0.1 0 10 20 30
0 60
Total dissolved solids, % 100 140 180 220 260 TEMPERATURE, F
Figure 2- 45
70
ROCK AND FLUID PROPERTIES FOR
AN IDEAL
WATERFLOOD PROJECT
1. Homogeneous and Non-Fractured Reservoir 2. Non-Partitioned, Isotropic (Kx = Ky), and Continuous Pay 3. High Porosity & Permeability Rock 4. Low Permeability Contrast between Layers 5. High Ky/Kh Ratio for High Relief Structures 6. Low Kv/Kh Ratio for Flat Structures 7. No Water Sensitive Clays 8. Water-Wet Rock 9. High Transmissibility between Flanks and Center (for Peripheral Injection Scheme) 10. High Oil Target 11. Low Oil Viscosity 12. Reservoir Average Pressure Higher than Bubble Point Pressure (No Free Gas Saturation) 13. Thick Oil Column with Small Oil-Water Transition Zone 14. Low Initial Water Saturation in Oil Column 15. Minimal Gas Saturation in Oil Column 16. No Gas Cap 17. Availability of Injection Water 18. Quality of Water 19. Chemical Compatibility between Waters & Oil 20. On-Shore Location
71
Section 2
CASE STUDY NO. 1

CHANGE IN GEOLOGIC CONCEPTS FORCE A CHANGE IN WATERFLOOD PLAN
Inj. Prod. Prod.
Oil-Water Contact
Old Geologic Concept Continuous Pay
Pay
The San Andres carbonate reservoir in the Denver Unit in Wasson San Andres field, Texas was produced at 40-Acre well spacing under the solution gas drive recovery scheme. A waterflood project was thereafter initiated to increase oil rate and recover additional oil. Based on the initial geological concept that reservoir is continuous with a common OWC, water was injected below OWC in the edge wells. Water was expected to move laterally in the aquifer and push oil vertically upwards. The peripheral waterflood did not perform as expected: 1. IPR (injection-production ratio) could not be sustained, as injectivity in the edge wells was low due to lower Kh. 2. Oil response was erratic; some up-dip wells showed rate gain while others did not experience any pressure or rate increase A detailed geologic study incorporating pressure-production data showed that pay zones are not only discontinuous (not floodable on the 40-Acre well spacing) but also have different OWC's. Based on the new geological concept, the peripheral plan was modified into a pattern flood and infill wells were drilled on 20-Acre well spacing.
72
Inj.
Prod.
Inj.
Prod.
Inj.
New Pay
Current Geologic Concept Non-Continuous Pay
Pay
The pattern flood had a great success. After the waterflood reached its economic limit, a CO2-flood was initiated and the well spacing was further reduced to 10-Acre spacing. It is currently an ongoing successful EOR project.
73
Section 2
CASE STUDY NO. 2

NEW TECHNOLOGY AIDS RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION
Peripheral water injection in the Ghawar Arab-D reservoir, Saudi Arabia, efficiently displaced oil from the flanks of the reservoir to the crestal producers, until water breakthrough occurred in an erratic manner in some flank wells while others in similar structural locations continued to produce dry oil. This is depicted in the figure below. No hard data was there to indicate faults and fractures in the reservoir. No well had ever crossed a fault, and well tests had not positively identified any fault or major discontinuity. In addition, there was a common belief (miss-belief) that faults in limestone and dolomite reservoirs cannot exist and will heal up if induced.
FLOOD FRONT
DRY OIL AREA
FAULTS
WATER UNDERRUNNING
WC TO N E RR CU
FRACTURE CLUSTERS
I IN
W LO T IA
WATERED-OUT AREA
To match flood fronts and water-cut history in wet wells, reservoir simulation models of the 1960 through 1980's resorted to dramatically increasing rock permeability in localized areas arbitrarily. These models resulted in good history-matches (of course), but their forecasts deviated badly from performance data on flood front and water production. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, 3-D seismic surveys and Image Log data positively confirmed for the first time the existence of fracture clusters and faults in the reservoir. The newer simulation models, based upon the geological models that incorporated faults and fracture clusters in the reservoir maps, matched history with only minor changes and produced forecasts that were in good agreement with the performance data.
PROBLEM NO. 1
Oil reservoirs A, B, and C, shown in the figure below, share a common aquifer and are in hydrodynamic equilibrium.
74
How would you classify these pressure systems at discovery? Normal Pressure Geo Pressure (Abnormal) Sub-Normal Pressure
SURFACE
A B
PROBLEM NO. 2
RFT pressure data has been collected in an infill well in a stratified sand/shale reservoir. Interpret this data for the effect of the shale layers on reservoir flow continuity. What other information can you deduce?
75
Section 2
6500
6550
A B C
gradient = 0.09 psi /ft
6600
DEPTH (SS FT)
6650
D
6700
6750
6800
F
6850 3140 3160 3180 3200 3220 3240 3260 3280
PRESSURE (PSIG)
PROBLEM NO. 3
Estimate oil-water contact in the reservoir shown below. The available data is: 1. The discovery well A found full oil (oil gradient = 0.35 psi/ft) column with pressure of 400 psig at 450 ft ss. 2. The first delineation well B was wet (water gradient = 0.45 psi/ft) with pressure of 1,750 psig at 1,800 ft ss.
76
B
0
500
1000
? OWC
1500
X
2000 500 1000 1500 2000
PROBLEM NO. 4
Below are Samples taken from 5 different layers in a reservoir, one sample is taken from each layer. Samples were taken from 3 different wells 1) Average the data and develop a semi-log Permeability - Porosity correlation for the entire reservoir. 2) Should you use one Permeability - Porosity correlation for the entire reservoir? Well #1 Interval Porosity Thickness h (ft) 5 10 30 25 10 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Well #2 Well #3
k(md) 0.1 1 10 100 1000
k(md) 0.2 0.8 3.2 12.6 50.0
k(md) 0.2 0.5 1.2 3.0 7.5
77
Section 2
PROBLEM NO. 5 & 6

Below are Samples taken from 5 different layers. Samples have been analyzed from each layer. 3 different rock types with different Perm-Porosity relationships (the same Porosity in this example is used for simplicity) have been developed for this reservoir. 1) Determine the Lorenz Coefficient of Heterogeneity for each rock type. 2) If these rock types can be identified easily in different areas of the field, then which areas will make the best candidate for Waterflooding? Well #1 Interval Porosity Thickness h (ft) 5 10 30 25 10 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Well #2 Well #3
k(md) 0.1 1 10 100 1000
k(md) 0.2 0.8 3.2 12.6 50.0
k(md) 0.2 0.5 1.2 3.0 7.5
For PROBLEM #6
1) Determine the Dykstra Parsons Coefficient of Heterogeneity for each rock type. Make the assumption that each sample represents a sample for every foot of pay. (In other words, for Rock #1 there 10 samples of 1000 md perm, 25 samples of 100 md perm, etc.) 2) COMPARE THESE RESULTS WITH THE NUMBERS OBTAINED FROM THE LORENZ CALCULATIONS AND IDENTIFY
ANY KEY DIFFERENCES.
PROBLEM NO. 7
An irregular shaped sand body, shown below, is to be water flooded.
78
INJECTOR
PRODUCER
Identify the following sand bodies: 1. Attic oil 2. Dead Ends (Trapped) oil 3. Floodable oil
PROBLEM NO. 8
Estimate permeability value at the observation well X from the data given on four of the wells in a waterflood pilot, by using all conventional methods.
1,500
D
0. 75
km
C
400
1.0 km
0.5 km
0.4 km
A
200
1,000
79
Section 2
PROBLEM NO. 9
Calculate continuity percent between Wells 1 and 2 in the reservoir with the stratification shown below:
3 1 2
10
20 10 = 0.1
= 0.2
10
20
= 0.3
20
= 0.2
2,500
5,000
What will be the benefit of drilling Infill Well 3 on the continuity percent?
PROBLEM NO. 10
Red Reservoir, Average Relative Permeability Characteristics Two samples having porosity values of 12.3% and 22.7% have been tested to determine their water-oil relative permeability characteristics. These are provided on the attached Data sheet. Questions 1. What definition of absolute permeability was used to prepare these curves? 2. For the sample with 22.7% porosity, what are the effective permeabilities to oil and water at a water saturation of 49 percent? 3. Does the rock from which these samples were obtained appear to be water-wet or oil-wet?
80
Laboratory Relative Permeability Results Sample 3A Porosity (frac) = Air Permeability (md) = Permeability to Oil at Swir (md) = Sw 0.231 0.318 0.404 0.491 0.577 0.664 0.750 Kro 1.000 0.680 0.430 0.250 0.120 0.050 0.000 Krw 0.000 0.020 0.045 0.078 0.130 0.190 0.280 0.227 23.8 21.4
Sample 3A
1.00 Relative Permeability 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 Kro Krw
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Water Saturation (fraction)
Sample 7C: Porosity (frac) = Air Permeability (md) = Permeability to Oil at Swir (md) = Sw 0.350 0.423 0.496 0.569 0.642 0.715 0.789 Kro 1.000 0.700 0.500 0.330 0.160 0.060 0.000 Krw 0.000 0.015 0.050 0.080 0.110 0.190 0.300 0.123 5.3 4.5
Sample 7C
1.00 Relative Permeability 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 Kro Krw
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Water Saturation (fraction)
81
Section 2
PROBLEM NO. 11
Calculate injection water requirement for maintaining average reservoir pressure at 3,000 psig and temperature of 100F in order to provide for voidage replacement balance, at the time when oil production rate is 5,000 STB/Day, gas production rate is 10 MMSCF/Day, and water production rate is 1,000 STB/Day. Fluid properties and given below: Oil Formation Volume Factor = 1.2 RB/STB Gas Formation Volume Factor - 0.001 RB/SCF Water Formation Volume Factor = 1.0 RB/STB Solution GOR at 3,000 psig & 100F = 500 SCF/STB
82

Paper Caracterizacion

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Paper Caracterizacion

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

S ECTION 2

WHY IS RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION NEEDED?

Open System Oil Water

Abnormally High (Geo-Pressure) Reservoir PR > 0.46 x Depth

Sub-Normal Pressure Reservoir PR < 0.46 x Depth

(Note: Pressure Gradient of salty formation water is assumed at 0.46 psi/ft.)

PRESSURE - DEPTH PLOTS

slope = .050 psi/ft.

slope = .377 psi/ft.

slope = .493 psi/ft.

EFFECT OF STRESS CHANGE DURING A WF ON PERFORMANCE

Figure 2-3 shows the type of porosity in a thin section.

SAND OR LIME GRAINS

DEAD END POROSITY EFFECTIVE POROSITY

METHODS FOR POROSITY MEASUREMENT

DIRECT LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS

Net Pressure: PSI

Net Pressure = Overburden Pressure Reservoir Pressure

POROSITY FROM WIRELINE LOGS

Pressure Regulator Sample Holder

Old Technology New Technology:

Downhole Photos, Image Logs (FMI/FMS)

PERMEABILITY FROM WELL TESTS

PERMEABILITY FROM WIRELINE LOGS

In the oil reservoirs, total compressibility is given by: Ct = Co So + CwSw + CgSg + Cf

OW C WATER-WET OIL WATER C OS WS ROCK SURFACE

1. INITIAL DISTRIBUTION OF OIL AND WATER

2. CONNATE WATER SATURATION

Water Wet Rock (Nugget Sand) 100

10 Oil Wet Rock (Springer Sand)

Water Saturation: Percent

3. FLUID FLOW THROUGH THE RESERVOIR Strongly Water-Wet Rock

Strongly Oil-Wet Rock

4. RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION TO WATERFLOOD

Strongly Water-Wet Rock

CUMULATIVE INJECTION, PVI

Strongly Oil- Wet Rock

CUMULATIVE INJECTION, PVI

WATER -OIL RATIO

WATER -OIL RATIO

Waterflood recovery is dependent on rock wettability

FLUID DISTRIBUTION IN A RESERVOIR

At the start of waterflood

100 Reservoir Pressure, % Original Pressure

Recovery Efficiency, % OOIP 100 90 80 70 60 50 40

Remaining Oil Saturation, %

FLUID DISTRIBUTION IN A RESERVOIR UNDER INITIAL (STATIC) CONDITIONS

Gas-oil contact Closure Oil-water contact

Gas cap Oil zone

Leading Edge Spill point

ING LEAD OW C GOC

GAS GAS TRANSITION ZONE PC OIL

DEPTH OIL-WATER TRANSITION ZONE

CAPILLARY PRESSURE DATA FOR WATERFLOODING

INTERMEDIATE WETTABILITY ROCK

Drainage P C = P O - PW Spontaneous Imbibition

STRONGLY WATER-WET ROCK

STRONGLY OIL-WET ROCK

OIL-WATER RELATIVE PERMEABILITY

Relative Permeability to Oil

Sw, Water Saturation

Relative Permeability to Water

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 WETTING PHASE SATURATION, %PV