1887

Abstract

Summary

Very low water effective permeability could explain the success of water flooding and polymer flooding into friable formation with viscous oil. This challenges the common assumption of poor performance because very adverse mobility ration. In this type of reservoirs, high permeability zones (above 8–10 Darcy) are not well characterised because they are often lost during coring or they are not suitable for coreflooding experiments. Then, the target resistance factor could be underestimated and polymer injection might not perform as expected. Multilayer fluvial reservoirs hinder vertical conformance and affect the efficiency of polymer flooding. Here we report the results of the ongoing polymer pilot. After injecting 0.3 pore volumes of polymer solution we recovered 10% ooip incremental oil above water flooding from the central pattern and 5% of the ooip from offset producers in contacted zone. The water cut reduced from 90% to 45% in the confined producer and from 87% to 67% in the offset producers. We calculated water flow velocities in the reservoir using three history matched simulation models constructed at different scales (full field, sector model coarse and fine) and we found that more than 90% of water velocities across the complete field are below 1ft/day [normally assumed reservoir water velocity for calculating the resistance factor in laboratory experiments]. We increased polymer concentration in 10 to 30% to ensure good mobility ration in the high permeability streaks possibly located in the channel bars. Simulation based analyses of the flows in the pilot zone strongly suggest that one of the key success factors was pattern confinement. There was no out flow of the central pattern. The very good performance in terms of low utility factor obtained so far [0.31 kg per incremental barrel of oil above water flooding] supports the hypothesis of the good confinement. This allows us to design a pattern rolling strategy for the polymer expansion that makes this technology economic for this low oil price context.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700242
2017-04-24
2020-04-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Cao, R., Sun, C. & Ma, Y.Z.
    , 2015. Modeling Wettability Variation during Long-Term Water Flooding. Journal of Chemistry, 2015, pp. 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold, W., Green, K. & Cameron, N.
    , 2009. Polymer Flood Application to Improve Heavy Oil Recovery at East Bodo. , 482).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Grattoni, C.A. & Kingdom, U.
    , 2005. Numerical And Experimental Investigation Into The Effects Of Viscosity And Injection Rate On Relative Permeability And Oil Recovery. , Pp.1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hryc, A. et al.
    , 2016. SPE-181210-MS Evaluation of a Polymer Injection Pilot in Argentina. In pp. 19–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , 2013. SPE 166078 Design and Execution of a Polymer Injection Pilot in Argentina.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Juri, J.E. et al.
    , 2015. Estimation of polymer retention from extended injectivity test. In Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, EORC 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Moreno, J.E. & Flew, S.
    , 2011. EOR: Challenges of Translating Fine Scale Displacement into Full Field Models. In SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference. Available at: http://www.onepetro.org/doi/10.2118/143568-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Paredes, J.M. et al.
    , 2007. Volcanic and climatic controls on fluvial style in a high-energy system: The Lower Cretaceous Matasiete Formation, Golfo San Jorge basin, Argentina. Sedimentary Geology, 2021–2), pp.96–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Goudarzi, A., Delshad, M. & Sepehrnoori, K.
    , 2016. A chemical EOR benchmark study of different reservoir simulators. Computers and Geosciences, 94, pp.96–109. Available at: htto://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2016.06.013.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. van den Hoek, P. et al.
    , 2012. Application of Injection Fall-Off Analysis in Polymer flooding. In SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference. Available at: http://www.onepetro.org/doi/10.2118/154376-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kumar, M.S. et al.
    , 2012. Polymer Injectivity Test in Mangala Field - A Significant Step towards Field Wide Implementation. SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, pp.1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Laoroongroj, A. et al.
    , 2012. Determination of the In-situ Polymer Viscosity from Fall-off Tests. In 74th EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2012 Copenhagen, Denmark, 4–7 June 2012. pp. 4–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Seright, R., Seheult, J. & Talashek, T.
    , 2009. Injectivity Characteristics of EOR Polymers. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 12(5), pp.783–792.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Southwick, J.G. & Manke, C.W.
    , 1988. Molecular Degradation, Injectivity, and Elastic Properties of Polymer Solutions. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 3(4), pp.1193–1201.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Teletzke, G., Wattenbarger, R. & Wilkinson, J.
    , 2010. Enhanced Oil Recovery Pilot Testing Best Practices. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 13(1), pp.3–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chang, H. L.
    (1978), ‘Polymer flooding technology yesterday, today, and tomorrow’, Journal of Petroleum Technology30(8), 1113–1128.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Davison, P. & Mentzer, E.
    (1982), ‘Polymer flooding in North Sea reservoirs’, Old SPE Journal22(3), 353–362.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Demin, W.; Lanshui, Z.; Jiecheng, C. & Junzheng, W.
    (2003), Actual field data show that production costs of polymer flooding can be lower than water flooding, in ‘SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific’.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Du, Y. & Guan, L.
    (2004), Field-scale polymer flooding: lessons learnt and experiences gained during past 40 years, in ‘SPE International Petroleum Conference in Mexico’.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gogarty, W.
    (1983), ‘Enhanced Oil Recovery Through the Use of Chemicals-Part I’, Journal of Petroleum Technology35(9), 1581–1590.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Han, D.-K.; Yang, C.-Z.; Zhang, Z.-Q.; Lou, Z.-H. & Chang, Y.-I.
    (1999), ‘Recent development of enhanced oil recovery in China’, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering22(1), 181–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hashmi, K.; Ravula, C.; Kalbani, A.; Jaspers, H.; Cherukupalli, P. & Choudhuri, B.
    (2013), Enhancing Value of Polymer Flood Project with Proactive Well and Reservoir Management, in ‘2013 SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference’.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hochanadel, S.; Lunceford, M. & Farmer, C.
    (1990), A comparison of 31 Minnelusa polymer floods with 24 Minnelusa waterfloods, in ‘SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium’.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jewett, R. & Schurz, G.
    (1970), ‘Polymer flooding-a current appraisal’, Journal of Petroleum Technology22(6), 675–684.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lake, L. W. & Walsh, M. P.
    (2008), Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) field data literature search, Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Manning, R. K.; Pope, G.; Lake, L. & Paul, G.
    (1983), A technical survey of polymer flooding projects, Bartlesville Project Office, US Department of Energy.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Manrique, E.; Gurfinkel, M. & Muci, V.
    (2004), Enhanced oil recovery field experiences in carbonate reservoirs in the United States, in ‘25th Annual Workshop and Symposium, International Energy Agency (IEA), Stavanger, Norway’.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Needham, R. & Doe, P.
    (1987), ‘Polymer flooding review’, Journal of petroleum technology39(12), 1503–1507.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Patton, J.; Coats, K. & Colegrove, G.
    (1971), ‘Prediction of polymer flood performance’, Old SPE Journal11(1), 72–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Taber, J.; Martin, F. & Seright, R.
    (1997), ‘EOR screening criteria revisited-Part 1: Introduction to screening criteria and enhanced recovery field projects’, SPE Reservoir Engineering12(3), 189–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Thyne, G. & Siyambalagoda Gamage, P.
    (2011), Evaluation of the Effect of Low Salinity Waterflooding for 26 Fields in Wyoming, in ‘SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition’.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Towler, B. & Griffith, D.
    (1999), Comparison of 20 Minnelusa waterfloods in the powder river basin, in ‘SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting’.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, D.; Cheng, J.; Wu, J. & Wang, G.
    (2002), Experiences Learned After Production of More Than 300 Million Barrels of Oil by Polymer Flooding in Daqing Oil Field, in ‘SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition’.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, D.; Cheng, J.; Yang, Q.; Gong, W.; Li, Q. & Chen, F.
    (2000), Viscous-elastic polymer can increase microscale displacement efficiency in cores, in ‘SPE annual technical conference and exhibition’.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang, J. & Dong, M.
    (2009), ‘Optimum effective viscosity of polymer solution for improving heavy oil recovery’, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering67(3), 155–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2009), ‘Optimum effective viscosity of polymer solution for improving heavy oil recovery’, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering67(3), 155–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, Z.; Le, X.; Feng, Y. & Zhang, C.
    (2013), ‘The role of matching relationship between polymer injection parameters and reservoirs in enhanced oil recovery’, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Weiss, W.
    (1992), Performance Review of a Large-Scale Polymer Flood, in ‘SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium’.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Yang, F.; Wang, D.; Yang, X.; Sui, X.; Chen, Q. & Zhang, l.
    (2004), High concentration polymer flooding is successful, in ‘SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition’.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2004), High concentration polymer flooding is successful, in ‘SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition’.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Delamaide, E.
    , 2014. Polymer Flooding of Heavy Oil - From Screening to Full-Field Extension. SPE Heavy and Extra Heavy Oil Conference: Latin America, (September), pp.24–26. Available at: http://www.onepetro.org/doi/10.2118/171105-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gao, C.H.
    , 2011. Scientific research and field applications of polymer flooding in heavy oil recovery. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 1(2–4), pp.65–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Levitt, D. et al.
    , 2011. The Interpretation of Polymer Coreflood Results for Heavy Oil. In SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition. pp. 1–17. Available at: http://www.onepetro.org/doi/10.2118/150566-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. , 2013. Polymer Flooding of Heavy Oil Under Adverse Mobility Conditions. SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conferences, (July), pp.2–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Let, K.P.M.S., Manichand, R.N. & Seright, R.S.
    , 2012. Polymer Flooding a ~ 500-cp Oil. In The SPE Imroved Oil Recovery Symposium-Oklahoma. pp. 14–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pandey, A. et al.
    , 2008. Chemical Flood Simulation of Laboratory Corefloods for the Mangala Field: Generating Parameters for Field-Scale Simulation. Proceedings of SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery. Available at: http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-113347-MS&soc=SPE.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kumar, M.S. et al.
    , 2012. Polymer Injectivity Test in Mangala Field - A Significant Step towards Field Wide Implementation. SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, pp.1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Manichand, R.N., Let, K.P.M.S. & Gil, L.
    , 2013. Effective Propagation of HPAM Solutions Through the Tambaredjo Reservoir During a Polymer Flood. , (April), pp.8–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kathrada, M.
    , 2009. Uncertainty Evaluation of Reservoir Simulation Models using Particle Swarms and Hierarchical Clustering.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700242
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700242
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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