SPE

SPE 10345

SocIety Of PetroIeI.m Engiooa"s Of ""ME

FIELD PILOT TESTS FOR TERTIARY RECOVERY

USING BUTANE AND PROPANE INJECTION

by Edgar F. Pacheco, Yacimientos Petroliferos Fi~cales Boli~i~nos

Alfredo I. Garcia, Yacimientos Petro11feros

F~scales Bol~v~anos

Copyright 1981, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

This paper was presented at the 56th Annual Fall Technical Conference and exhibition Of the Society of Petroleum Eng!n:~~ of AIMbE't hel~ I~
San Antonio, Texas, October 5-7,1981. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy Is restnc e 0 an a s rac 0
not more than 300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas 75206.

ABSTRACT
This paper describes a pilot project for tertiary recovery of liquid hydrocarbons through LPG
injection in watered-out sections of the Bolivar reservoir in La Pena Field, Santa Cruz-Bolivia. The
promising results obtained in the initial field miscibility tests, as well as the results from a mathematical model built to simulate and evaluate the
tertiary recovery project, directed subsequent work
into a cyclic scheme for enhanced rec~very. This
scheme is explained and injection production data
is presented. Field facilities built to handle both
the injected LPG and the produced Oil-LPG mixt~re
are described. The Oil/LPG ratio and the LPG recovered/injected fraction are the main factors measured in this test to make further considerations
for a full scale project.
INTRODUCTION
The Bolivar reservoir of La Pena Field which
is located 30 kilometers SE from the city of Santa
Cruz, was discovered while drilling well N 3 in
February 1970 at a depth of 8620 ft. (2630 m).
Thirty-seven wells were completed in this reservoir
as shown in the structural map (Fig. 1) and the net
oil sand map (Fig. 2). Physical properties are
listed in Table 1.
To date 42% of the 42.8 MM STB (6.80 MM m3 ) of
oil in-situ have been recovered since 1972 when the
field was placed on production. The high recovery
factor is due to a strong water drive acting on this
reservoir. Its original pressure of 3736 psia
(25.76 M Pal has been reduced only to 3650 psia 3
(25.17 M Pal after producing 18 MM,STB (2.86 MM m)
of oil. The in-situ associated gas plus the gas
cap add to a total of 52.9 x 10 9 SCF (1.50 x 109 m3 ).
To date 21.8 x 10 9 SCF (0.62 x 10 9 m3 ) have been
produced.
References and illustrations at end of paper.

From a material balance

ing ihto account the primary
forecasted by decline curves
MM m3 ), the average residual
reservoir is estimated to be

point of view and taktotal oil recovery

at 18.87 MM STB (3.00
oil saturation in this
around 30%.

Since the quality of the crude produced from

this reservoir is of paramount importance as feedstock of the local refineries, it was decided to
try to recover additional volumes of this crude
through some enhanced recovery method. The primary
recovery mechanism of a strong water drive ruled
out water flooding, leaving only options of tertiary
recovery schemes.
On the other hand, a nearby absorption plant
located 24.5 KIDs. from La Pena had some surplus LPG
production that was being re-injected in the dry
gas stream of a gas-condensate cycling project.
Hence, it appeared advantageous to try to use this
LPG as a miscible agen~, to recover residual oil
from the Bolivar reservoir.
Laboratory LPG injection tests were made with
cores and the results obtained proved to be inconclusive, but a se~ies of PVT analysis of LPG plus
oil varying mixtures suggested a behavior of instant miscibility of the oil with LPG injection at
reservoir conditions. A field miscibility test was
then designed and carried out to determine some additional mechanical and reservoir parameters.
Subsequently, a mathematical model of the reservoir built in 1974 was updated and the results
used to build a finer grid model for only.the portion
of the reservoir that was going to be subjected to
the enhanced recovery project. This model has the
capability of simulating miscible displacement.
Various schemes were simulated withit.
After building the necessary facilities, the
actual injection was started in December 1980. Cyclic injection and production for two wells are
near completion.

FIELD PILOT TESTS FOR TERTIARY RECOVERY USING

LABORATORY TESTS
LPG injection tests on resaturated and waterflooded cores were carried out in a service laboratory1 to obtain specific data for the reservoir hnd
to verify how it compared with published data2 ,4.,S.
Unfortunately, the results were not accurate enough
because the reservoir was poorly consolidated and
special handling procedures had to be used with only partial success. Problems started with disgregga
tion during plug cutting, then plugging or breaking during water flood or othe; injection testing.
However, experiments reported in the literature 2 were considered applicable to La Pefia Field,
in particular the statement that a bank of solvent
with a volume less than 10 per cent of hydrocarbon
pore volume to be displaced should be adequate to
recover all of the oil from the reservoir contacted.
Favorable conditions for miscibility of La Pefia
oil with LPG are more apparent i f the ,ST oil gravity of 43 API and the high average reservoir pressure of 3650 psig are taken into consideration.
This pressure is greater than the bubble point
pressure of any mixture of LPG and reservoir oil
(Fig. 4).
.
Bubble point behavior of various Oil-LPG mixtures at reservoir conditions was verified in a
laboratory3. The experiment showed decreasing Ph
values as more LPG was added to the reservoir oil
in the cell, thus showing an instant miscibility.
This analysis was not intended to have more than a
qualitative signification because recombination of
the separator oil and gas in the cell was not adjusted precisely to the actual reservoir pressure.
Published empirical graphical prediction curves
for miscibility 4 (Fig. 5) were also studied. According to these prediction curves at only 3000 psia
e;f pressure, the oil should be miscible with LPG
even if 63% of methane were added to the solvent;
hence, as the actual percentage of methane in the
LPG is very low, it was concluded that miscibility
will be commensurably much easier.
FIELD MISCIBILITY TEST
The next step after lab analysis considerations
was to perform a field miscibility test6 in a presently unproductive well. Oil well N 7, completely
watered out, was selected for this test. It had a
recent gravel pack recompletion to stop possible
sand production problems.
At first the well was put on gas lift production just to confirm its completely watered out
status. Then, after producing only formation water
for over a week, the well was converted to a butane
injector. Injection was achieved with a reciprocating pump temporarily adapted to handle a flammable liquid hydrocarbon as butane in this Case.
Four LPG trucks were connected to a gathering
injection line and while these were operating other
trucks were waiting in line to continue the butane
supply for tnjection, as shown schematically (Fig.
6) and described in reference 6.

B~

AND PROPANE INJECTION

SPE 10345

After a short butane slug injection of 808 bbl,

the well was shut-in for a few hours and then opened
and put on production. Consequently the test became
a short cyclic operation with a quick positive response.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the gradual change in composition of both separator liquid and gas produced
during the field test, reflecting the variable proportions of the solvent with the recovered oil. Use
of these data resulted in calculating a recovery of
682 bbl of residual oil volume plus essentially all
the injected butane.
Approximately 300 bbls of clean butane were recovered before any oil was observed in the produced
fluid. It was then assumed that this volume of bu~
tane acted only as a displacing piston thrqugh an
already 'cleaned out sand. The remaining 508 bbl
of butane contacted and induced 682 bbl of oil production. This resulted in a 1.3 bbl/bbl ratio of
oil produced per barrel of LPG injected.
MATHEMATICAL SIMULATION MODELS
A further insight to the possible alternatives
for an enhanced recovery project was obtained through
mathematical modeling. A black oil three-dimensional
model built in 1974 was modified and updated with
data to March 1980, covering all the northern Bolivar
reservoir with 18 wells. This coarse grid model
(Fig. 9) with a total of 300 cells (10 x 10 x 3) included the smaller 200 acre area selected for the
pilot project. Valuable data concerning migration
predictions inside and outside the pilot area was
obtained along with the natural water drive future
behavior of the rest of the producing oil wells.
Once the base prediction was obtained from this
first'or reference model, a second model was built
with miscible drive capabilities, circumscribed to
the pilot area and with a finer grid of 8 x 13 x 4
cells (Fig. 10). This model takes into account migration of fluids by means of three upstructure
pseudo wells that simulate the potential difference
between cells as predicted by the first model. It
considers two layers for the original pay zone and
two layers for the very thick and strong natural
aquifer.
Among the five year prediction alternatives
studied by the mode1 7 , several different LPG slug
injection volumes were attempted, three of them followed with additional water or gas injection and
two others without it. Cases are described below
and results are summarized in Table 2.
Case A
After history matching the primary behavior of
the four wells, this case continues predicting it
without any further drilling or ext,ernal injection.
Consequently this is a base option case without enhanced recovery.
Case B
LPG is injected into Well 18 for 6 months, then
injection is fOllowSd in Well 19 for a similar period while Well 18 is shut-in. upstructure wells 27

SPE 10345

E. F. pacheco & A. I. Garc!a

and 30 continue to produce along with well 41, newly

drilled in the middle of the four wells. This option
showed that producing wells alone cannot mnintain a
large enough pressure differential to sustain sufficient reservoir fluid flow from the injector wells
after these stop injecting.

3.

Injection pumps - The main pump is a plunger

type Union TX-150 triplex pump operated by a
440 V electric motor rated at 150 HP at 1750
RPM. This pump can deliver 60 GPM (327 m3/D)
at 2710 psig (18.1 M Pal.
A booster pump provides net positive suction
head for the main pump.

Same two injector wells are simulated but time of

LPG injection is increased to a total of 9 months irt
each one, followed by continuous water injection.
Upstructure wells 27, 30 and' 41 remain as producers.
The low recovery efficiency shown in Table 2 is
however better than Case B.

An orifice meter downstream from the pump

provides means of measuring the injected

LPG.
4.

Heater - A field gas heater rated at one

million'BTU (1055056 kJ) was installed to
heatr,the Oil-LPG mixture produced by the
wells in their production cycle. The heater
is an oil bath t.ype heater where the Oil-LPG
mixture temperature is increased up to
150F (65C). Its main purpose is to
provide heat to boil off the propane and
butane and to help break the water-oil
emulsion.

5.

Oil-LPG separator - A 36 inch 00 10 ft. long

horizontal, two-phase separator was instal--!:
led downstream from the heater to separate
oil and LPG. The vapor phase which consists
mainly of butane and propane goes through a
cooler to a deethanizer tower. The oil and
water flow to a water separation tank. Both
phaaes are measured using orifice meters.
The separator operates at 80 to 100 psig
(550 to 690 kPa) and 130 to 150F (54-66C).

6.

Cooler - A heat exchanger was installed to

cool and condense the butane-propane vapors.
Water at 80F (27C) avaialable from field
water production or LPG are used as cooling
medium. Vapors ar~ cooled do~~ to 90 OF
(32C) or 55 F(13 e) as needed.

7.

Deethanizer tower - A packed tower with a

reboiler provides means of separating the
entrained ethane and methane. Separation
with this equipment is not complete and the
vapors leaving the top of the tower have
some p40pane and butane and are fed to a low
pressure compresor. The bottom liquid is
LPG that goes back to the LPG tanks for reinjection. The tower operates at 90 psig
(620'kPa) with temperatures at the top and
bottom adjusted according to feed compositior

Case D
Cyclic injection/production for Well 18i8
considered with all other wells as producers. That
is after 460 Mbbl of LPG injection, Well 18 is open
to production in a similar way but much longer than
in the field test previously described. Cell
dimensions were less suitable to show this particular
well with the necessary detail. However results are
much improved over the previous cases, although the
short field test showed greater recovery efficiency.

Similar to Case B, with LPG injection in wells

18 and 19, but this time followed by continuous gas
injection. Recovery efficiency' for this case is the
best as far as oil is concerned, 467 MSTOB vs 536
Mbbl of LPG injected, however LPG recovery shown is
Table 2 appears low within the five year period
studied.

This is an inverted five spot scheme where only

Well 41 temporarily injects LPG followed by continllous
gas injection. Wells 18, 19, 27 and 30 are ppoducers.
This case resulted in lower recovery efficiency than
cases e and D.
FIELD FACILITIES
The field facilities (Fig. 11) propo~ed and installed, to handle injection and production of LPG
during the first phase of the pilot project, consist
of the following:
1.

Pipeline - A 3-1/2 inch (88.9 rom) 00 line

11,500 meters long was built to join an
existing 6-5/8 inch (168.3 rom) OD line'
13,000 m~ter long', to transport LPG from an
absorption plant in the nearby Rio Grande
gas-condensate field. Two pumps at this
plant are capable of pumping 9000 bpd
(1430 m3/D) of LPG'to La Pefia Field at 300
psig (2 MPa).

2.

LPG tanks - Two 110 m3 cylinders rated at

250 psig (1.7M Pa)were installed in La Pefia
to provide enough volume so that injection
operations would net be overly dependent
on the cyclic availability of the surplus
LPG in the aQsorption plant and to' minimize
coordination needs between these two flelds.

The major problems encountered in the operation

of this equipment are associated with the changing
proportions of the Oil-LPG mixture that is handled.
The operating pressures and temperatures are continuously varied over a wide range to optimize oil and LPG
recovery. Measuring the volumes of oil and LPG also
proved to be difficult. Turbine type meters were triec
because they offer greater versatility for ch~nging
volumes, but were later changed for orifice type
meters because a number o'f measurements were found
to be unreliable.
Louse sand production has to be controled mainly
by keeping low fluid production rates choking down
the wells. Thus production rates compa4ed ;~ith
injection rates are much lower.

FIELD PILOT TESTS FOR TERTIARY RECOVERY

RESULTS OF CYCLIC INJECTION/PRODUCTION SCHEME

For this phase 8 wells were chosen to test for
recovery of residual oil. Two wells have practically completed the injection/production cycle and ~ill
first be described here:

USIN~ BUT~E

AND PROPANE INJECTION

SJ?E 10345

Both wells LP~-18 and LPf.l-41 had a water cut

when placed on production. Well LPf.l-18 had a high
water cut from the beginning but it stayed relatively constant at about 70\.' ' The water cut from LPf.l-41
slowly increased to the current 30\.
Well LPf.l-40

Well LPf.l-18
This well lies at the NW edge of the field (Fig.
1) and it was chosen for this scheme because this
section of the reservoir was completely invaded by
water and it was deemed important to test recovery
under watered out conditions or with minimum residual oil saturation. The well was drilled in May
1971 and had produced 189,927 barrels of oil, 216,309
barrels of water and 211.5 MMCF of associated gas.
Its last test before water and sand invasion showed
95\ water cut oil at 8 bpd.
After cleaning out the sand and replacing the
production packer and tubing, the well was turned
into a butane injector. Since the well was filled
with completion water and until the butane reached
the sand face, the injection pressure slowly increased to 1500 psi. When the butane reached the
sand face, pressure abruptly climbed to 2700 psi,
showing the low permeability to hydrocarbons existing at this point. After a period of soaking, injectionwas resumed with pressure slowly falling
off to 2100 psi at a rate of 1250 bpd. A total of
58,888 barrels of butane were injected during the
period from December 17, 1980 to February 5, 1981.
The well was placed on production February 8th
and it produced 9000 barrels of butane before any
measurable oil could be detected. On February 25th
the first oil was produced and measured at an average of 15 bpd for the following month. A very small
choke was used for the first month of production.
During April the oil rate averaged 90bpd and at the
end of the month the rate peaked at 180 bpd. It
then declined steadily due to increasing water cut
until at the end of July it stood at 15 bpd. A total
of 6178 barrels of oil and 18,215 barrels of butane
were recovered. The well is still on production
(Fig. 13).
Well LPf.l-41
This new well had as objectives both primary
and tertiary oil production within the pilot project. It was completed in September 1980 with a
gravel pack in the Bolivar sand, obtaining only 13
bpd of oil production with 88\ water cut. Its cumulative production before the tertiary recovery attempt was only 1256 barrels of oil, 1623 MCF of 'gas
and 2194 barrels of water. During April 1981 and
using the butane recovered from well LPf.l-18 plus
some additional volume, a total of 71,252 barrels
of butane were injected to this well.
It was placed on production on May 1st and
13,400 barrels of clean butane were produced before
oil detection. Oil production started on May 26,
1981 at 22 bpd and increased to a peak rate of 195
bpd. This production declined to a 50 bpd rate at
the end of July. CUrrently more than 6800 barrels
of oil and 38,000 barrels of butane were recovered.
This well is still on production (Fig. 12).

This was an infill well located at the northeastern portion of the field. Its cumulative primary production was only 2835 barrels of oil and
1504 MCF of gas. Its last test before being invaded
by water shows 20 bopd with 80\ water cut. A total
of 20,809 barrels of butane and 11,050 barrels of
propane were injected during the period of April 22,
1981 to June 20, 1981. To date 11,000 barrels of
LPG have been recovered.
Wells LPf.l-7, 29, 42
Mechanical problems associated with sand production precluded injection to these wells and they
will be considered for a workover before any attempt
to inject is made, or other wells will be chosen to
replace them.
Wells LPf.l-31, 35
These wells are injecting LPG at the present
time.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The behavior of the first two wells 18 and 41
during their production cycle and their current production data show that the final recovery obtained
from these wells will be approximately 13,600 barrels
of oil and 56,900 barrels of butane (Figs. 12, 13).
Consequently the recovery ratio of (Oil-LPG)p/(LPG}i
will be 0.54 through these wells. It is felt that
two factors greatly influenced the reduced oil and
LPG recovery: a) The LPG slug injected was probably
too large, and b) The production rates were excessively restricted.
A large volume of LPG injection and the corresponding prolonged time of restricted production allowed migration of contacted oil and Oil/LPG mixture
upstructure from the wells not only by gravity segregation but also due to existing potential difference
from the edge of the structure towards its center.
This migration was calculated to be in the range of
100 to 150 bpd. Most of the oil and LPG recovered
has probably entered the wells just from the immediate downdip area.
As production rates had to be restricted to prevent sand production, the vertical' forces ,of the aquifer tended to prevail over the horizontal productive components, breaking Oil-LPG flow lines and consequently decreasing oil and solvent recovery due to
early water re-encroachment. Water production which
in this field normally signals impending sand production and possible plugging of the well tubing, restricted further the production rates.
On the other hand, a preliminary analysis of the
recovery ratios found in the miscibility test and on
the two wells tested so far, show that their ratio
decreases as the injection volume per foot of pay

SPE 10345

E. F. Pacheco & A. I. Garcia

increases. It seems that an optimum volume lies

between 500 to 1000 barrels per foot of pay. Improved behavior is expected in future wells as the
LPG slug volume will be reduced.
If a balance can be found between the make-tp
LPG needed for injection and the oil recovered, the
project becomes of economic interest because of the
market requirements. The unrecovered LPG plus the
oil it contacted should slowly migrate upstructure
and could be considered a long term LPG storage
with an additional recovery of oil once it reaches
an up structure well. One 6f the reasons for needing extra LPG make-up volumes is the volume of propanes and butanes that are lost through the deethanizer tower and presently compressed and injected
into an export gas line.
Moreover, a second and possibly a third. cycle
will be tried in wells 18 and 41 once oil production stops, to determine if the area has been totally contacted, cleaned and the extent to which
a new oil residual saturation has developed.
The data acquired so far will be used as input
for the miscible flood-model in. an effort to improve
this tool in predicting the behavior and migration
patterns of other suggested schemes8
The unusual cyclic technique used in this experimental project is very similar to the well
known technique of steam soak or "hUff and puff"
used world-wide. Both are meant to let residual
oil flow into the well by reducing the interfacial
tension and viscosity of oil.

REFERENCES
1.

Dann, M.: "Tertiary Oil Recovery Tests for YPFB

La Pefia Field", Core Lab, Dallas, Texas,
September 1980.

2.

Hall, H. N. and Geffen, T. M.: "A Laboratory

Study of Solvent Flooding", SPE Reprint Series
N 8, Miscible Processes.

3.

Valdivia, J., Cornejo, R. and Valencia, G.:

"Analisis PVT y Estudio de Miscibilidad con
GLP - Pozo LP:f)I-34", Report CTP-06-429-80, YPFB,
November 1980.

4.

Benhan, A. L., Dowden, W. E. and Kunzman, W. J.:

"Miscible Fluid Displacement Prediction of
Miscibility", Trans. AIME (1960), 219.

5.

Blackwell, R. J., Rayne, J. R. and Terry, W.M.:

"Factors Influencing the Efficiency of Miscible
Displacement", Trans. AIME (1959), 216, 1.

6.

Garc1a, A. I.: "Inyeccion de GLP para Recuperacion Experimental de Petr6leo Residual - Campo
La Pefia", XXXVII ARPEL Meeting, October 1980.

7.

Graue, D. J.: "Report on Simulation Model of

the Northwest Portion of the La Pefia Field",
Scientific Software Corp., Denver, January 1981.

8.

Larson, v. C. and peterson, R. B.: "Technology's

Role in Alberta's Golden Spike Miscible Project",
Seventh World Petroleum Congress.

TABLE
AVERAGE RESERVOIR AND FLUID PROPERTIES
Formation Age

Ca.rbonic

Tank oil Gravity

43API (811 kg/m3 )

Oil viscosity at reservoir

conditions

0.25 c.P (2.5x10- 4

Pa.s)
940 SCF/STB

Type

Unconsolidated Sand

Depth

8600 ft (2600 m)

Total Area

2200 Acres (890 hal

Original GOR

Thickness

30 ft (9.1

Oil formation volume factor

Porosity

22%

Original Reservoir Pressure

Water Saturation

43%

Reservoir Temperature

Permeability

120

rod

m)

(0.12 ~2)

1.52
3736 psia (25.76 MFA)

Formation water salinity

TABLE

3000 ppm Cl Na eq.

RESULTS FROM SIMULATION

Case

Descri;etion

Cumulative Injection
LPG
MBBL

Basic prediction, no
injection

Temporary LPG injection

LPG injection followed by

water injection

One well with cyclic

injection-production

460.0

LPG injection followed by

gas injection

536.0

Inverted five spot LPG

injection followed by
gas injection

535.0

Water
MBBL

Gas
MMSCF

Preaicted Cumulative
Production (1981'+85)
LPG
~

~LPGll2

~LPG1EOi1

(LPG)i

(LPG)i

16.0

185

0.023

0.294

75.6

281

0.074

0.350

210

223

0.457

0.941

3778

122

467

0.228

1.099

14010

82

154

0.150

0.437

-'

684.4
1019.0

Oil
MBBL

Recovar:i Ratios

2648

19

21

.4/

24

30

:.j

.39
.13
37

27

\..

29

'~

rJ

16

~OO

:""

II

31

Fig. t

STRUCTURAL MAP
BOLIVAR Reservoir

34

Fig. 2

NET _OIL ISOPACH

BOLIVAR Re rvoir

l00r_----r_----r_----r_----r_~--r_----r_----r_----r_----r_~~

~
o

a
Q.
m

OIL......

F
0
:::>

a:

a..

..J

o 1.000
74

1972

76

1975

77

78

79

1980

81

Y.EARS

Fig.3

RESERVOIR

PRODUCTION

HISTORY

I"or' "'rvoir prur. of SOOCI PSIA

Mol; W.iQht C~+ of 200

3000r-----------------------------------,

2000

;;:::::::::::::::::;;::iii
44.1

---34
l000~--~--~--~~--+_--~--~----L-~

00

% LPG with Reservoir Oil

Fig. 4

LAB BUBBLE POINT VARIATION FOR DIFFERENT

OIL-LPG MIXTURES

RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE of

Fig. 5

BENHAM'S ET AL MISCIBILITY PREDICTION

Vent.

GAS
-T
..........
I

r-t><J-- ---f><I- - -

I
I

ORIF
METER.

....._ _-1....-1 Recip.

......

Pum~ll---

I
I

LPG TRUCKS

LPG

To BURN PIT

........-C><J----,r--_ _ _ _ _O_IL_+_L_PG_ _ _I-O

LPN-7Well
_ .l!.A!2:!~ --i><l:---

To Gathering Line

Fig. 6

fiELD MISCIBILITY TEST DIAGRAM

60

50

10 9

C4o--,

IZ
LIJ

20

a.

80

c7.r"

(,)

0::
LIJ

~~

(,)

30

0::
LIJ

..J

60

a.
...i

::i

20

:::!E

~"Solvem

LIJ

40

..0

10

Ce

20

ca
c.c!.
o
10

15

20

25

30

Z=

~~

/.

C3

"

C2
10

Production Time Hrs.

Fig.7 PRODUCED OIL COMPOSITION DURING

MISCIBILITY TEST

"

"

15

20

Production Time Hrs.

Fig.8 PRODUCED GAS COMPOSITION DURING

MISCIBILITY TEST

234!5

67

8910

Pilot Aria

0 21

fe"
30 0

2
3

iStO

20

d2

!5

167

013

6'

OZ1

'6

7
0

33

0'4

05

O28 9
O~

10

ot
FiG.9

GRID FOR BLACK OIL SIMULATOR NORTH BOLIVAR RESERVOIR

!5

Op,

@1'

@30

5
6

@41

OP1

to
It

@t8
@27

12

13

OP1

P = Pseudo wa"

FiG. 10 GRID FOR PILOT AREA MISCIBLE SIMULATOR

DEETHANIZER

80 F
Gas to low pressure compressor

HEATER

Feed
120 psi

80F

Oil ~ water to final

separator and tanks

90 ......-+---,

200-250
of
1---""""1I00I

Psi

SEPARATOR
I..-_ _ _.....;C:..:..ru:,:d::,.e..:.O;.:..iI...:::6.:...,;W.:.,:o.;,:tt.;,..r_ _ _ _~!----'

Reboiler

LPG TANKS

To injection well

PUMPS

-...,..---------)

b ...

....

'iQ)

LPG
from Absorption Plont

I------J

Production Well

Fig. 11 FIELD FACILITIES FOR CYCLIC WELL

INJECTION - PRODUCTiON

Wen 41

Wen 18

200

200

0
II.
III

II.
GI

\aI

'"

D:

100

100

' ..........,
o

2000

4000

6000

BBL

Fig. 12 CUMULATIVE TERTIARY OIL RECOVERY

AFTER ONE CYCLE SOLVENT INJECTION

......
0

2000

4000

_-

6000

BBL

Fig.13 CUMULATIVE TERTIARY OIL RECOVERY

AFTER ONE CYCLE SOLVENT INJECTION