1887

Abstract

Summary

Smart waterflooding has emerged as an EOR process of much interest in recent years. Much research is being reported, along with a few successful field applications, notably clastics. In most cases, there are undeniable inconsistencies in results between lab and field cases. This leads to unpredictable outcomes and misleading profit prediction of smart waterflooding projects. The objective of this work is to evaluate uncertainties in smart waterflooding from core- to field-scale.

experiment is mimicked by 1-D numerical model that couples with geochemical reactions. Validation results show that there are many combinations of matching parameters that can describe coreflooding results. Each realization may lead to different results when extended to 3-D heterogeneity model. Hence, to cover ranges of uncertainties, many realizations should be tested before summarizing smart waterflooding performance.

Full-field heterogeneity model also shows that smart waterflooding is sensitive to grid size and heterogeneity. With different grid volume settings, results vary dramatically. This may contribute towards smart waterflooding misinterpretation. Furthermore, heterogeneity alters smart waterflooding within a particular range by affecting cation exchange capacity, and subsequently interpolant value, which is used to represent system wettability. Therefore, these parameters should be accounted in field-scale simulation to obtain smart waterflooding true potential.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700294
2017-04-24
2021-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Awolayo, A., Sarma, H., & Nghiem, L.
    (2017). A Comprehensive Geochemical-based Approach at Modeling and Interpreting Brine Dilution in Carbonate Reservoirs. Presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference, 20–22 February2017. Montgomery, TX, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bethke, C.
    (2006). GWB Essentials Guide. Illinois, USA: University of Illinois.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brooks, R., & Corey, A.
    (1964). Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media. Hydrology Papers.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dang, C.
    (2015). Mechanistic Modeling, Design, and Optimization of Low Salinity Waterflooding. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Ph.D. Thesis, University of Calgary.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. GEM
    . (2015). GEM User Guide - Version 2015. Computer Modelling Group (CMG), 691.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hamon, G.
    (2016). Low-Salinity Waterflooding: Facts, Inconsistencies and the Way Forward. Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log Analysts.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Jerauld, G., Lin, C., Webb, K., & Seccombe, J.
    (2008). Modeling Low Salinity Waterflooding. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 11(6): 1000–1012.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Kadeethum, T.
    (2016). Understanding Uncertainties Using Performance Predictive Models for Smart Waterflooding. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: M.Sc. thesis, University of Calgary.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kadeethum, T., Sarma, H., & Maini, B.
    (2017). Enhance Microscopic Sweep Efficiency by Smart Water in Tight and Very Tight Oil Reservoirs. Presented at SPE Canada Unconventional Resources Conference, 15–16 Feb. Calgary, Canada: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Korrani, A. K.
    (2014). Mechanistic Modeling of Low Salinity Water Injection. Austin, Texas, USA: Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kozaki, C.
    (2012). Efficiency of Low Salinity Polymer Flooding in Sandstone Cores. In M.Sc. thesis. University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lager, A., Webb, K., Black, C., Singleton, M., & Sorbie, K.
    (2008). Low-Salinity Oil Recovery – An Experimental Investigation. Petrophysics, 49(1):28–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Levine, D., Ramsey, P., & Smidt, R.
    (2001). Applied Statistics for Engineering and Scientists. Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu, Y., & Yang, Y.
    (2015). Evolution of the Surface Area of Limestone during Calcination and Sintering. Journal of Power and Energy Engineering, 56–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Loahardjo, N., Xie, X., & Morrow, N.
    (2010). Oil Recovery by Sequential Waterflooding of Mixed-Wet Sandstone and Limestone. Energy & Fuels, 24(9):5073–5080.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Moreno, J. E., & Flew, S.
    (2011). EOR: Challenges of Translating Fine Scale Displacement into Full Field Models. Presented at SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 19–21 July. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Moreno, J. E., Flew, S., & Gurpinar, O.
    (2013). EOR: Challenges of Translating Fine Scale Displacement into Full Field Models -Part 2. Presented at SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 2–4 July. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2015). EOR: Challenges of Translating Fine Scale Displacement Into Full Field Models Part 3. Presented at SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 11–13 August. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Morrow, N., Tang, G., Valat, M., & Xie, X.
    (1998). Prospects of Improved Oil Recovery Related to Wettability and Brine Composition. Journal of Petroleum and Engineering, 20(3–4):267–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Morrow, N., Valat, M., & Yidliz, H.
    (1996). Effect of Brine Composition On Recovery of an Alaskan Crude Oil By Waterflooding. Presented at Annual Technical Meeting, June 10 – 12. Calgary, Alterta: Petroleum Society of Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rivet, S., Lake, L., & Pope, G.
    (2010). A Coreflood Investigation of Low Salinity Enhanced Oil Recovery. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 19–22 September. Florence, Italy: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Schott, J., Brantley, S., Crerar, D., Guy, C., Maria, B., & Willaime, C.
    (1989). Dissolution kinetics of strained calcite. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 373–382.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Shalabi, E. W.
    (2014). Modeling the Effect of Injecting Low Salinity Water on Oil Recovery. Austin, Texas, USA: Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Tang, G., & Morrow, N.
    (1997). Salinity, Temperature, Oil Composition and Oil Recovery by Waterflooding. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 12(4):269–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Timur, A.
    (1968). An Investigation Of Permeability, Porosity, & Residual Water Saturation Relationships For Sandstone Reservoirs. The Log Analyst, 9(4).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Willhite, G.
    (1986). WATERFLOODING SPE TEXTBOOK SERIES VOL. 3. Society of Petroleum Engineering.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Winoto, W., Loahardjo, N., Xie, S. X., Yin, P., & Morrow, N. R.
    (2012). Secondary and Tertiary Recovery of Crude Oil from Outcrop and Reservoir Rocks by Low Salinity Waterflooding. Presented at SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 14–18 April. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Xie, Q., Ma, D., Wu, J., Liu, Q., Jia, N., & Luo, M.
    (2015). Low Salinity Waterflooding in Low Permeability Sandstone: Coreflood Experiments and Interpretation by Thermodynamics and Simulation. Presented at SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 11–13 August. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhang, Y., & Morrow, N.
    (2006). Comparison of Secondary and Tertiary Recovery with Change in Injection Brine Composition for Crude Oil/ Sandstone Combinations. Presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery. Tulsa, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Zhang, Y., Xie, X., & Morrow, N.
    (2007). Waterflood Performance by Injection of Brine with Different Salinity for Reservoir Cores. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 11–14 November. Anaheim, CA, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700294
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700294
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