1887
  1. Home
  2. Conferences
  3. Conference Proceedings
  4. ECMOR XVI - 16th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery
  5. Conference paper

Abstract

Summary

Water Alternating Gas (WAG) injection is one of the most successful enhanced oil recovery approaches. Properly accounting for the hysteretic effects of relative permeabilities is a critical issue encountered in numerical simulations of WAG at the mesoscale. proposed a sigmoid-based model for three-phase oil relative permeability, incorporating key physical effects taking place at the pore scale. The model can then be jointly used with the model, accounting for gas relative permeability hysteresis, to develop a formulation for three-phase relative permeability suitable for reservoir simulation.

In this study we illustrate the impact of this joint formulation on a field scale setting through a suite of numerical simulations of WAG injection targeting a reservoir model inspired to real life cases. The analysis is performed by embedding the illustrated relative permeability models in the black oil model implemented in the Matlab Reservoir Simulation Toolbox ( ). We assume non-hysteretic behavior for water relative permeability under water-wet conditions and characterize it upon relying on corresponding laboratory-scale data. As a baseline, the results are compared against a scenario in the absence of three-phase relative permeability hysteresis.

The computational domain is heterogeneous, the spatial distributions of porosity and absolute permeability varying across the ranges of [0.02 – 0.3] and [0.1 – 2600 mD], respectively. The model is set at equilibrium conditions, production being driven by three peripheral injectors and five up-dip producers. A given flow rate is assigned to each injector and a target value of liquid production rate is imposed at the producing wells. The numerically evaluated production rates constitute our target state variables. The schedule of the injectors is set to achieve a preliminary waterflooding phase followed by a WAG injection scheme. The latter is implemented by periodically switching the injected phase between water and gas for two injectors, the third injector continuously injecting water. The numerical simulations are performed through a fully implicit discretization of the equations governing the system dynamics. To minimize computational costs, we employ an algebraic multi-grid method and resort to a multi-processor high performance clustered computer system. Our results suggest that hysteretic effects are important across significant portions of the studied reservoir system. Field production responses are associated with a simultaneous increase of ultimate oil recovery and a corresponding decline of the gas-oil ratio when hysteretic effects are included in the simulations.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802255
2018-09-03
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802255
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarnes, J. E., Hauge, V. L., and Efendiev, Y.
    [2007] Coarsening of three-dimensional structured and unstructured grids for subsurface flow.Adv. Water Resour., 30(11), 2177–2193. doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.04.007.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  2. AfzaliS., Rezaei, N., and Zendehboudi, S.
    [2018] A comprehensive review on enhanced oil recovery by water alternating gas (WAG) injection.Fuel, 227, 218–245.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alizadeh, A.H. and Piri, M.
    [2014a] Three-phase flow in porous media: A review of experimental studies on relative permeability.Rev. Geophys.52(3), 468–521. doi:10.1002/2013RG000433
     https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000433 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alizadeh, A. H. and Piri, M.
    [2014b] The effect of saturation history on three-phase relative permeability: An experimental study.Water Resour. Res., 50(2), 1636–1664. doi:10.1002/2013WR014914
     https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014914 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bianchi Janetti, E., Riva, M. and Guadagnini, A.
    [2015] Analytical expressions for three-phase generalized relative permeabilities in water- and oil-wet capillary tubes.Comput. Geosci., 20(3), 555–565, doi:10.1007/s10596‑015‑9508‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-015-9508-5 [Google Scholar]
  6. BirardaG.S. DilgerC.W. McIntoshI.
    [1990] Re-evaluation of the miscible WAG flood in the Caroline Field, Alberta.SPE Reservoir Eng., 5(4), 453–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Blunt, M.J.
    [2000] An empirical model for three-phase relative permeability.SPE J., 5(3), 435–445. SPE-56474-MS. doi: 10.2118/67950‑PA
     https://doi.org/10.2118/67950-PA [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlson, F.M.
    [1981] Simulation of relative permeability hysteresis to the nonwetting phase, SPE-10157-MS, Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 5–7. doi:10.2118/10157‑MS
     https://doi.org/10.2118/10157-MS [Google Scholar]
  9. Caudle, B.H., Slobod, R.L. and Brownscombe, E.R.
    [1951] Further developments in the laboratory determination of relative permeability.J. Petrol. Tech., 3(5), 145–150. doi:10.2118/951145‑G
     https://doi.org/10.2118/951145-G [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, Z., Huan, G., and Ma, Y.
    , [2006] Computational methods for multiphase flows in porous media.SIAM Comp. Sci. Eng., Philadelphia. doi:10.1137/1.9780898718942
     https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898718942 [Google Scholar]
  11. Di Carlo, D.A., Sahni, A. and Blunt, M.J.
    [2000] The effect of wettability on three-phase relative permeability, Transp. Porous Med., 39(3), 347–366. doi:10.1023/A:1006653323374
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006653323374 [Google Scholar]
  12. Egermann, P., Vizika, O., Dallet, L., Requin, C. and Sonier, F.
    [2000] Hysteresis in three-phase flow: experiments, modeling and reservoir simulations, SPE-65127-MS, Presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Paris, France, 24-25 October. doi:10.2118/65127‑MS
     https://doi.org/10.2118/65127-MS [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoseini, J., Masoudi, R., Mirkalaei, M., Mousa, S., Ataei, A. and Demiral, B.
    [2011] Investigating the effects of hysteresis modeling on numerical simulation of immiscible WAG injection, IPTC-15055-MS, Presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, February 7–9. doi:10.2523/IPTC‑15055‑MS
     https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-15055-MS [Google Scholar]
  14. Hauge, V.L. Lie, K.A. and Natvig, J.R.
    [2012] Flow-based coarsening for multiscale simulation of transport in porous media.Comput. Geosci.16(2), 391–408. doi: 10.1007/s10596‑011‑9230‑x.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-011-9230-x [Google Scholar]
  15. Kianinejad, A., Chen, X. and Di Carlo, D. A.
    [2015] The effect of saturation path on three-phase relative permeability, Water Resour. Res.51(11), 9141–9164. doi:10.1002/2015WR017185
     https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017185 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kulkarni, M.M. and Rao, D.N.
    [2005] Experimental investigation of miscible and immiscible water-alternating-gas (WAG) process performance.J. Petrol. Sci. Eng., 48(1), 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Killough, J. E.
    [1976] Reservoir simulation with history-dependent saturation functions.SPE J., 16(1), 37–48. SPE-5106-PA. doi:10.2118/5106‑PA
     https://doi.org/10.2118/5106-PA [Google Scholar]
  18. Land, C.S.
    [1968] Calculation of imbibition relative permeability for two- and three-phase flow from rock properties.SPE J., 8(2), 149–156, SPE-1942-PA. doi:10.2118/1942‑PA
     https://doi.org/10.2118/1942-PA [Google Scholar]
  19. Larsen, J.A. and Skauge, A.
    [1998] Methodology for numerical simulation with cycle-dependent relative permeabilities.SPE J., 3(2), 163–173. SPE-38456-PA. doi:10.2118/38456‑PA
     https://doi.org/10.2118/38456-PA [Google Scholar]
  20. Lie, K.A. Kedia, K. Skaflestad, B. Wang, X. Yang, Y. Wu, X.-H. and Hoda, N.
    [2017] A general non-uniform coarsening and upscaling framework for reduced-order modeling, SPE-182681-MS, Presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference, 20-22 February, Montgomery, Texas, USA. doi:10.2118/182681‑MS
     https://doi.org/10.2118/182681-MS [Google Scholar]
  21. Lie, K.A.
    [2016] An introduction to reservoir simulation using MATLAB: user guide for the Matlab Reservoir Simulation Toolbox (MRST). https://www.sintef.no/projectweb/mrst/publications
  22. Lie, K.A. Krogstad, S. Ligaarden, I.S. Natvig, J.R. Nilsen, H.M. and Skaflestad, B.
    [2011] Open source MATLAB implementation of consistent discretisations on complex grids.Comput. Geosci., 16(2), 297–322. doi:10.1007/s10596‑011‑9244‑4.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-011-9244-4 [Google Scholar]
  23. Moghadasi, L., Guadagnini, A., Inzoli, F., Bartosek, M. and Renna, D.
    [2016] Characterization of two- and three-phase relative permeability of water-wet porous media through X-Ray saturation measurements, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng., 145, 453–463. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2016.05.031
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.05.031 [Google Scholar]
  24. NapovA. and Notay, Y.
    [2012] An algebraic multigrid method with guaranteed convergence rate, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 34, A1079–A1109. doi: 10.1137/100818509
     https://doi.org/10.1137/100818509 [Google Scholar]
  25. Notay, Y.
    [2012] Aggregation-based algebraic multigrid for convection-diffusion equations, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 34, A2288–A2316. doi: 10.1137/110835347
     https://doi.org/10.1137/110835347 [Google Scholar]
  26. [2010] An aggregation-based algebraic multigrid method, Electronic Transactions on Numerical Analysis, 37, 123–146.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Oak, M.J., Baker, L.E., and Thomas, D.C.
    [1990] Three-phase Relative Permeability of Berea sandstone.J. Pet. Tech., 42, 1054–1061.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Oak, M.J.
    [1990] Three-phase Relative Permeability of Water-wet Berea, SPE-20183-MS, Presented at 7th SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 22–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Piri, M. and Blunt, M. J.
    [2005] Three-dimensional mixed-wet random pore-scale network modeling of two and three-phase flow in porous media, I. model description.Phys. Rev. E., 71, 206–301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.71.026301
     https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.71.026301 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ranaee, E., Inzoli, F., Riva, M. Cominelli, A. and Guadagnini, A.
    [2018] Propagation to reservoir simulation of uncertainty associated with three-phase relative permeability models with hysteresis, SPE-190825-MS, Presented at SPE Europec featured at 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, 11–14 June, Copenhagen, Denmark. doi:10.2118/190825‑MS
     https://doi.org/10.2118/190825-MS [Google Scholar]
  31. Ranaee, E., Moghadasi, L., Inzoli, F., Riva, M. and Guadagnini, A.
    [2017] Identifiability of parameters of three-phase oil relative permeability models under simultaneous water and gas (SWAG) injection.J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.159, 942–951. doi: /10.1016/j.petrol.2017.09.062
     https://doi.org//10.1016/j.petrol.2017.09.062 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ranaee, E., Riva, M., Porta, G. M. and Guadagnini, A.
    [2016] Comparative assessment of three-phase oil relative permeability models.Water Resour. Res., 52(7), 5341–5356. doi:10.1002/2016WR018872
     https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR018872 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ranaee, E., Porta, G. M., Riva, M., Blunt, M. J. and Guadagnini, A.
    [2015] Prediction of three-phase oil relative permeability through a sigmoid-based model.J. Petrol. Sci. Eng., 126, 190–200. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2014.11.034.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.11.034 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schlumberger Geo-Quest
    . 2010. ECLIPSE 100 Reference Manual.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Shahverdi, H. and Sohrabi, M.
    2013. An improved three-phase relative permeability and hysteresis model for the simulation of a water-alternating-gas injection. SPE J., 18(5), 841–850. SPE-152218-PA. doi:10.2118/152218‑PA
     https://doi.org/10.2118/152218-PA [Google Scholar]
  36. Skauge, A. and Stensen, J.Å.
    [2003] Review of WAG field experience, presented in first international conference and exhibition, modern challenges in oil recovery, Gubkin University, Moscow, Russia, 19-23 May.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Skauge, A, and Larsen, J.A.
    [1994] Three-phase relative permeabilities and trapped gas measurements related to WAG processes, Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, Stavanger, Norway.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Sohrabi, M., Danesh, A. and Jamiolahmady, M.
    [2008] Visualization of residual oil recovery by near-miscible gas and SWAG injection using high-pressure micromodels.Transp. Porous Med., 74(2), 239–257. doi:10.1007/s11242‑007‑9193‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-007-9193-5 [Google Scholar]
  39. SpeightJG.
    [2009] Enhanced recovery methods for heavy oil and tar sands.Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Spiteri, E. J. and Juanes, R.
    [2006] Impact of relative permeability hysteresis on the numerical simulation of WAG injection.J. Petrol. Sci. Eng., 50(2), 115–139. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2005.09.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2005.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  41. Suicmez, V. S., M.Piri and Blunt, M. J.
    [2007] Pore-scale simulation of water alternate gas injection.Transp. Porous Med., 66(3), 259–286. doi:10.1007/s11242‑006‑0017‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-006-0017-9 [Google Scholar]
  42. Thakur, G.C. and Satter, A.
    , [1998] Integrated waterflood asset management.PennWell Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Van Dijke, M. I. J., Sorbie, K. S. Sohrabi, M. and Danesh, A.
    [2006] Simulation of WAG floods in an oil-wet micromodel using a 2-D pore-scale network model.J. Petrol. Sci. Eng., 52: 71–86. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2006.03.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2006.03.014 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802255
Loading
Numerical Assessment Of Water Alternating Gas Practices In The Presence Of Hysteresis Effects On Relative Permeability
Conference Proceedings 2018, 1 (2018); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201802255
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802255
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802255
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error