Você está na página 1de 12

SPE 94073

Oil Recovery by Near-Miscible SWAG Injection


M. Sohrabi, A. Danesh, and D. H. Tehrani, Petroleum Engineering Institute, Heriot-Watt U.

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers


This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference held
in Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the SPE, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage
of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract
of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
We present micromodel visualization of pore-scale
displacement mechanisms and fluids distribution during
recovery of residual oil by near-miscible Simultaneous-WaterAnd-Gas (SWAG) injection under conditions of very low gasoil interfacial tension (IFT) and negligible gravity forces. A 3phase fluid system with gas-oil IFT of 0.08 mN/m,
representing a near-miscible fluid system, together with highpressure (5100 psia) micromodel were used for the flow
experiments.
We demonstrate that in near-miscible SWAG injection, the oil
recovery continues significantly and almost all of the oil that
has been contacted by the gas will be recovered, after the main
gas breakthrough. This oil is recovered by a microscopic
mechanism, which is strongly linked to the low IFT between
the oil and gas and to the perfect spreading of the oil over
water, both of which occur as the critical point is approached.
We have performed experiments with different SWAG
(gas/water volumetric) ratios and we show that the ultimate oil
recovery during SWAG injection is almost independent of
SWAG ratio, within the tested range of 20 to 50%. This makes
SWAG injection an attractive IOR process especially for
reservoirs where continuous and high rate gas injection is not
possible (e.g. due to supply constraint). In oil reservoirs that
cannot export gas (remoteness from the market) WAG (for
abundant gas volume) or SWAG (for low or high volume of
gas) can be implemented.

Introduction
Oil recovery from mature waterfloods can be enhanced by
combined injection of water and gas in an alternating (WAG)
or simultaneous (SWAG) scheme. However, less experience
has been gained on SWAG compared to WAG and hence the
process is less known.

SWAG appears to provide better control of gas mobility than


WAG, resulting in improved sweep efficiency in addition to
more steady gas production and GOR response. In some oil
reservoirs (especially offshore) a relatively small amount of
produced gas and/or a rapidly falling gas rate makes it
uneconomical to develop a gas export solution. It is also not
economically viable to supply gas to these reservoirs for a
continuous gas injection scenario e.g. remoteness from source
of gas. Re-injection of the produced associated gas together
with water to provide reservoir pressure support, better sweep
and hence increased recovery, appears to be the best overall
solution. In these cases, SWAG offers a solution whereby a
changing mixture of injection fluids could be used and a total
void replacement could be achieved by combining produced
gas and water supplemented by sea water to the required
injection volume.
From environmental point of view, in cases where export of
gas is not economical, re-injection of the produced gas in a
SWAG scheme can significantly reduce or in certain cases
eliminate the need for flaring. SWAG injection can cut both
capital and operating costs and improve gas handling and oil
recovery. It can also eliminate the need for separate water and
gas injection lines to the injection wells.
The improved gas handling and oil recovery have been
reported for SWAG injection at Siri field1,2, the Joffre Viking3
CO2 miscible flood and SWAG emulation at the Rangely4
CO2 miscible flood. Pilot tests performed on Kuparuk River
Field in Alaska5-6 have also demonstrated the feasibility of
SWAG injection.
In this paper we report pore scale events observed in
micromodel experiments during near-miscible SWAG
processes with hydrocarbon gases. The main purpose of the
study was to gain a better understanding of the pore-scale
near-miscible displacement mechanisms underlying the
SWAG process. We present visualisation of fluid distribution
and pore-scale mechanisms for recovery of residual oil by
near-miscible SWAG injection under conditions of water-wet
and negligible gravity forces in high-pressure glass
micromodels. The results reveal the pore-scale mechanisms of
SWAG process at near miscibility. In particular, we show that
behind the main gas front, the recovery of the oil continues
and almost all of the oil that has been contacted by the gas will
be produced. The ultimate oil recovery during SWAG
injection is almost independent of SWAG (water/gas) ratio
within the test range of 20 to 50%.

SPE 94073

EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES
For the displacement experiments a high-pressure glass
micromodel rig has been used. The rig has been designed to
operate at pressures of up to 6000 psia with high quality
images of fluids distributions and pore-scale mechanisms
operating during displacement experiments being recorded.
The experiments reported here were carried out at 5100 psia
pressures and 100 F temperature and the fluid system used
represented a near-miscible fluid system. Fig. 1 shows the
glass micromodel (and its pore pattern) used in this study. The
pore pattern was etched on the glass surface using acid etching
technique. The depth of the pores was between 35-45 m with
the width of the pores being between 35 to 400 m. Details of
the experimental set up have been described elsewhere7,8.
Fluid System.
The experiments reported here used a simple, wellcharacterised, three-component, three-phase fluid system that
exhibited a near-miscible (near-critical point) gas/oil system at
37.8 C (100 F) and 5100 psia. The aqueous phase was distilled
water with 0.1% (wt/wt) blue dye. The hydrocarbon phases
were mixtures of n-decane (n-C10) and methan (C1). To avoid
mass transfer during the experiments, the fluids were preequilibrated at the conditions of the experiments, (100 F and
5100 psia). At 100 F, the critical pressure of the C1-C10
system is around 5300 psia so at 5100 psia (pressure of the
experiments) the gas-oil system is very close to its critical
point and hence, nearly miscible. At the prevailing conditions
of the experiments the viscosity of the hydrocarbon vapour
(gas) and hydrocarbon liquid (oil) is estimated to be 0.0378
and 0.1085 mPa.s respectively. Equilibrium values of threephase interfacial tensions (IFT) of the fluid system, at the
above temperature and pressure, were measured and are given
below:

Gas/Oil
Gas/Water
Oil/Water

Interfacial Tension/mNm-1
0.08 +0.01
41 +2
41 +2

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Using the above fluid system and micromodel a number of
SWAG experiments were carried out. All of the displacements
were performed quasi-statically at 5100 psia and 100 F with
the micromodel mounted horizontally to minimize gravity
effects. Here we report the results of two near-miscible
SWAG injection experiments. The first experiment was
carried out with a gas to water ratio of 50% and in the second
one the gas to water ratio was reduced to only 20%. In either
experiments, the micromdel was first flooded with water to
simulate a conventional waterflooding of an oil reservoir.
Then water and gas, which was nearly miscible with the oil,
were injected in a SWAG mode to recover some of the
residual oil. Details of the experimental procedure and
discussion for these two experiments are given in the
following sections.

SWAG with 50% gas to water ratio.


Initially the micromodel was fully saturated with clear
distilled water and pressurised to 5100 psia and subsequently
displaced with blue live water, equilibrated with gas and oil at
5100 psia and 100 F. To simulate primary drainage (initial
migration of oil into the water bearing porous media),
equilibrated oil was injected from one end of the horizontal
micromodel. The injection of the oil was carried out at a low
velocity 1.2 m/d (Nc 1E-7) and continued until oil reached
the other end of the micromodel.
Fig. 2 depicts the initial water saturation established after oil
injection with the blue colour representing water and the
bright colour representing oil. Fig. 3 is a magnified image of a
section of the micromodel at the end of primary drainage of
water (oil injection through water saturated micromodel). It
shows the relative position of the wetting phase (blue water)
and non-wetting phase (white oil), in a water-wet micromodel.
The direction and shape of the water-oil interfaces are good
indication of water-wet conditions. As well as occupying
some of the smaller or dead-end pores water is also present as
a wetting layer over the pore surface, even in oil-filled pores,
as expected.
Water flooding began after the initial oil injection (and
establishment of connate water). Water was injected into the
micromodel at a low rate of 0.01 cm3/h, corresponding to a
capillary number of 1E-7 and a linear velocity of 1.2 m/d.
Due to a very low rate of water injection, high water/oil IFT
(41 mN/m) and the micromodel being strongly water-wet,
water was observed to enter the model by layer flow (as
opposed to piston wise displacement) with no sharp
waterfront. The water layers, surrounding the oil, were seen to
thicken progressively. Also the oil was displaced mostly from
the sides and corners of the pores, with residual oil remaining
in the middle of the pores in shape of narrow oil filaments.
Fig. 4 compares a section of the micromodel before and after
water flooding. Comparison of Fig. 4(a) and Fig. 4(b)
highlights the fact that during water flooding the dominant
mechanism has been layer flow as opposed to piston-type.
The slow thickening of water films at the sides and corners of
the oil filled pores was a direct consequence of a capillary
dominated flow regime. A similar flow mechanism was
previously observed and reported by the authors7. The
waterflood continued until no more oil production or changes
in fluids distribution was observed. At the end of this
waterflood, simultaneous injection of the near-miscible gas
and water commenced with the same total rate as the previous
waterflood.
SWAG injection was carried out from the same end of the
micromodel as that in the waterflood. As soon as the invading
gas came in contact with the residual oil, the gas front was
covered with a small amount of oil during SWAG injection.
As the gas advanced further, a small bank of oil formed and
moved ahead of the gas front.
The oil bank, moving ahead of the gas front, supplied oil to
pores where residual oil was present. This resulted in
thickening of those oil filaments, which came in contact with
the invading gas or the oil front ahead of it. As a result of this,
the oil ganglia left behind after the initial waterflood could be

SPE 94073

divided in two types. The first type is oil in form of narrow


filaments surrounded with thick water layers. This is the oil
that has not been contacted by the in coming gas (or it
associated oil bank). The second type is fat oil ganglia
connected with the gas channels. These have been formed by
local oil transfer brought about by the gas invasion.

Fig. 5 depicts the fluid distribution during the near-miscible


SWAG injection after 1 hour of simultaneous water and gas
injection, with blue, bright and yellow colour representing
water, oil and gas, respectively. As it can be seen, despite a
very low value of gas-oil IFT, gas has made only a single
channel through the network of pores with a significant
amount of oil being bypassed by the gas. There are two
reasons for this. First, in water flooded porous media the
water saturation is high which tends to block the movement of
gas and shield the residual oil from being contacted by it. This
effect (water shielding) is even more severe in low gas-oil IFT
conditions. The second reason is the topology of the porous
medium, which causes some of the oil that has been contacted
by the gas or its associated oil bank, to become apparently
trapped in dead-end or semi dead-end pores. Dead end-pores
are those that are physically dead-end and semi dead-end
refers to those pores, which are not physically dead-end but
the flow of oil is restricted by water at one end (water/oil IFT
is by far larger than gas/oil IFT in near-miscible gas
injections).
During SWAG injection, we observed that the saturation of
the oil, which was connected to the gas channel, kept reducing
and led to a complete recovery of all the oil that was contacted
by gas. Fig. 6 shows the distribution of the fluids within the
micromodel after continuation of the near-miscible gas flood
for 3.5 hours. The gas and water saturations have significantly
increased and the oil saturation has decreased. In fact, as it can
be seen in Fig. 6, almost all of the residual oil that had been
contacted by the initial gas channel has now been recovered.
To demonstrate this point more closely Fig. 7 has been
prepared. This shows the magnified pictures of a section of
the micromodel at the beginning of the SWAG injection and
3.5 hours after the injection has started. By comparing the
location of the gas-oil and water-oil interfaces in these two
images, it can be seen that, as the SWAG injection continued,
the gas-oil and water-oil interfaces approached each other
thereby invading the oil-occupied pores, albeit, the gas-oil
movement has been much more pronounced than the
advancement of the water-oil interface. As SWAG injection
continued more oil was recovered and eventually all of the oil,
which had been contacted by gas was produced.
SWAG with 20% gas to water ratio.
In this experiment exactly the same procedure that was
explained for the previous test was followed with the only
difference being that a lower gas to water ratio of 20% was
used during SWAG injection.
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 present the results of the SWAG injection
with 20% gas when the injection had just begun and 3.5 hours

after the start of the injection respectively. Examination of


these Figures and comparison with the results of the 50%
SWAG ratio case reveals that in both cases, recovery of oil
after the gas breakthrough continued and has been a
significant part of the overall oil recovery. It is interesting to
note that in the SWAG test where only 20% of the total
injection volume (gas + water) was gas, qualitatively, almost
the same amount of oil was recovered as was in SWAG with
50% gas. In both cases, as a result of continued injection of
water and gas, almost all of the residual oil that had been
contacted by gas had been produced. In other words, injection
of gas in SWAG mode, even in small quantities, helps
improving the oil recovery. This is, of course true only under
our prevailing experimental conditions and the range of
SWAG ratios tested and might not be suitable to generalise to
actual field conditions.
DISCUSSION
In near-miscible SWAG injection experiments that are
reported here, a significant part of the residual oil (to
waterflood) was recovered. Careful examination of the
micromodel images and videos recorded during these nearmiscible SWAG injections reveals that crossflow takes place
between the oil in the bypassed pores and the gas path, after
the main gas front has passed. As a result of this crossflow, oil
is transferred from the bypassed pores to the pores swept by
gas where it can be recovered quickly. A combination of a
very low gas/oil interfacial tension (IFT), perfect wetting (or
spreading) conditions of the oil (which is sometimes referred
to as critical-point wetting), and also simultaneous flow of the
near-miscible gas, oil and water in the main flow stream
facilitates this pumping action during near miscible SWAG
injection.
Close to the critical point any third, non-critical phase will be
covered by a layer of one of the near-miscible phases. This
phenomenon is known as critical-point wetting. According to
Cahn9, a transition from partial to complete wetting is
expected to occur when the gas-oil critical point is
approached, e.g. upon an increase in temperature, pressure or
oil becoming richer in dissolved gas. Consequently, in nearmiscible gas floods the oil perfectly wets the solid surface
(wetting layer) or water substrate (spreading layer in waterwet systems) and therefore the bypassed oil remains connected
to the oil in the pores already swept by the gas.
When gas invades a porous medium containing oil and water,
even at very low or zero gas/oil IFT, there is always going to
be some oil left behind in the pores. This is mainly because
some pores show less resistance to the gas flow than the
others. As a result, when the main gas front has passed, there
is still some oil (bypassed at the pore level) occupying pores
that are connected to the established gas path. In cases where
the gas is near-miscible, due to a very low gas-oil IFT the
capillary forces are no longer dominant, therefore the
threshold capillary pressure resisting the entry of the gas into
the bypassed oil is very small hence, the gas pressure can
overcome the very small capillary barrier and moves the
interface into the oil phase. This provides an effective driving
force to transfer the bypassed oil into the main flow stream.

SPE 94073

Once the oil has been transferred into the main gas path, its
flow is further enhanced by coupling with the flow of the gas
which is in the middle part of the pores and the water which
flows as layers on the walls of the pores. Since the IFT
between the oil and the gas is very low (near-miscible) the gas
and oil can flow together10,11 in the middle of the pores with
water flowing alongside them in the corners and tighter parts
of the pores cross section.
The results show that the amount of gas is not a crucial issue
as long as there is enough gas to connect up the isolated oil
ganglia remained after the initial waterflood and also as long
as enough gas is circulated to maintained a continuous gas
path in the porous media. This process best suits the cases
where only little gas is available or some gas is available
seasonally. There may be some oil trapped in pores that are
isolated and cannot be easily contacted by gas. Therefore, we
concluded that practically all the oil that could be contacted by
gas was recovered, in our experiments.
Conclusions
1. Even in a homogeneous porous medium and low IFT
floods, there is always some trapped oil (bypassing at the
pore level) due to topological effects, water-shielding
and dead-end pores.
2.

Near-miscible SWAG injection can produce a significant


amount of the residual oil from waterflooded reservoirs.

3.

In near-miscible SWAG injection the recovery of oil


after breakthrough of the main gas front is significant
and can lead to total recovery of the oil that is contacted
by gas.

4.

In SWAG injection with high gas-water ratio, extra


amount of injected gas does not significantly help the oil
recovery.

5.

Oil that is bypassed can be recovered by crossflow from


the bypassed pore to the fast track gas path.

Acknowledgements
The above study has been sponsored by: The UK Department
of Trade and Industry, BP Exploration Operating Company
Ltd, BHP Billiton Ltd, Norsk Hydro a.s., PDVSA Intevep,
Shell UK Exploration and Production, Statoil and Total
Exploration and Production UK which is gratefully
acknowledged.

References
1. Berg, L.I., Stensen, J.A., Crapez, B. and Quale, A.:
SWAG Behavior Based on Siri Field Data paper SPE
75126, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 13-17 April 2002.
2.

Quale, E.A., Crapez, B., Stensen, J.A., Berge, L.I.:


SWAG njection on the Siri Field An Optimized
Injection System for Less Cost paper SPE 65165, SPE
European Petroleum Conference, Oct. 2000.

3.

Stephenson D.J., Graham A.G., Luhning R.W.:


Mobility Control Experience in the Joffre Viking
Miscible Carbon Dioxide Flood, SPE Reservoir
Engineering, Aug. 1993, p183-188.

4.

Attanucci V., Asbsen K.S., Hejl K.A., Wright C.A.:


WAG Process Optimization in the Rangely Carbon
Dioxide Miscible Flood, paper SPE 2662, SPE 68th
Annual Technical Conkrence, Oct. 1993.

5.

Stoisits, R F., Krist G. J., Ma, T. D., Rugen, J.A., Kolpak


M. M., and Payne, R L.: Simultaniuous Water and Gas
injection Pilot the Kuparuk River Field, Surface Line
Impact, Paper SPE 30645, SPE Annual Tech. Conf.,
Oct. 1995.

6.

Ma, T. D., Rugen, J. A. and Youngren, G. K.:


Simultaneuous Water and Gas Injection Pilot at the
Kupamk River Field, Reservoir Impact, Paper SPE
30726, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Oct. 1995.

7.

Sohrabi, M., Tehrani, D.H., Danesh, A., and Henderson,


G.D.: Visulisation of Oil Recovery by Water
Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection Using High Pressure
Micromodels Water-Wet System paper SPE 63000
presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 1-4.

8.

Sohrabi, M., Tehrani, D.H., Danesh, A., and Henderson,


G.D.: Visualisation of Oil Recovery by Water
Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection Using High Pressure
Micromodels - Oil-Wet & Mixed-Wet Systems paper
SPE 71494 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 30
September3 October.

9.

Cahn, J.W., Critical point Wetting, J. Chem. Phys.


(1977) 66, 3667.

10. Williams, J.K. and Dawe, R.A., photographic


observations of unusual flow phenomena in porous
media at interfacial tensions below 0.1 mNm-1, Journal
of Colloid and Interfaces Science, 124 No.2, 691-696,
August 1988.
11. Jamiolahmady, M., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H and
Duncane, D.B., A mechanistic model of gas-condensate
flow in pores, Transport in porous media 41: 17-46,
2000.

SPE 94073

Fig.1- Horizontal micromodel 100% saturated with blue water. The left picture shows the whole micromodel in small
scale. The right picture is the same but divided in two halves, in a larger scale, for clarity.

SPE 94073

Fig. 2- Initial oil and water distribution before water flooding (Virgin Conditions).

SPE 94073

Fig.3- A magnified section of the water-wet micromodel at the end of primary drainage of water demonstrating shapes
of water (blue)/oil (white) interfaces.

(a)

(b)
Fig.4- A magnified picture of the micromodel before (a) and after (b) water flood.

SPE 94073

Fig.5- Fluid distribution within the micromodel after 1 hour near-miscible SWAG injection with a gas to water ratio of
50%.

SPE 94073

Fig.6- Fluid distribution within the micromodel after 3.5 hours near-miscible SWAG injection with a gas to water ratio
of 50%. Almost all of the residual oil that had come in contact with the gas has been recovered.

10

SPE 94073

Fig.7- A section of the micromodel during gas injection. A) at the beginning of SWAG injection B) 3.5 hours after the
SWAG injection started. Note that the gas channels have widened and oil ganglia have shrunk as a result of the gas/oil
and water/oil interfaces approaching each other.

SPE 94073

Fig.8- Fluid distribution within the micromodel after 1 hour near-miscible SWAG injection with a gas to water ratio of
20%.

11

12

SPE 94073

Fig.9- Fluid distribution within the micromodel after 3.5 hours near-miscible SWAG injection with a gas to water ratio
of 20%.

Você também pode gostar