1887

Abstract

Summary

The present work aims to assess the potentialities of foam in mitigating the gas injection issues foreseen during water alternating gas injection (WAG) scheme, such as premature gas breakthrough at producers and gas cycling. Main objective is to demonstrate foam efficiency for an offshore oil field by integrating extensive dedicated laboratory testing, accurate reservoir modeling and preliminary facilities feasibility, key steps for field EOR application.

The adopted workflow focused on the close integration of different analyses allowing the characterization of the different phenomena and criticalities that may arise during foam injection application.

Lab tests started with an accurate in bulk surfactants screening to identify the best performer for the candidate reservoir.

Eleven foamers were tested and the best one was selected for the following core flood tests.

Core flood tests were performed at reservoir pressure and temperature conditions. Berea cores were first flooded under WAG scheme and then adding also a buffer of the optimized foamer solution (FAWAG scheme). Core flood results showed that injection of foam decreases gas and fluid mobility. The reduction of foamer performance in presence of oil was also evaluated.

Core floods results were matched and main foam parameters were obtained to perform field scale foam injection simulations. Two sets of parameters matching the available lab data were defined. Both of them were applied providing an optimistic and a pessimistic scenario. Field scale simulations highlighted that foam injection provided a positive effect on field oil production and GOR reduction; the best scenario highlights additional reserves of about 3% after 15 years of production associated with a 30% GOR reduction.

The pre-feasibility study identified the most suitable injection scheme and it assessed no major show stoppers from flow assurance. The preliminary cost estimate per incremental barrel associated to the implementation of the technology was also done.

Main conclusion of the study was that laboratory tests, numerical simulations and preliminary facilities assessment confirm the potentialities of foam injection for the candidate reservoir.

An integrated and comprehensive workflow was set-up to estimate the efficiency and benefits of foam injection. The presented workflow is currently being applied to assess foam injection potentiality for other fields within the company's portfolio.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900104
2019-04-08
2020-09-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BlakerT., CeliusH. K., LieT., MartinsenH. A. and VassendenF.
    [2002] Foam for Gas Mobility Control in the Snorre Field: The FAWAG Project. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, pp. 317–323.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cheng, L., Reme, A.B., Shan, D., Coombe, D.A. and Rossen, W.R.
    [2000] Simulating Foam Processes at High and Low Foam Qualities. SPE, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. CubillosH., MontesJ., PrietoC. and RomeroP.
    [2012] Assessment of Foam for GOR Control to Optimize Miscible Gas Injection Recovery, SPE 152113
    [Google Scholar]
  4. de JonghC., LundE., HoleM. and DuncanJ.
    [2007] Ula WAG–World Class EOR–Breathing the Gas of Life into a Mature Oil Field. 14th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery — Cairo, Egypt
    [Google Scholar]
  5. FallsA. H., HirasakiG. J., PatzekT. W., GauglitzD. A., MillerD. D. and RatulowskiT.
    , [1988] Development of a Mechanistic Foam Simulator: The Population Balance and Generation by Snap-Off. SPE Reservoir Engineering, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 884-892.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. McPhee, C.A., TehraniA.D.H. and JollyR.P.S.
    [1988] Foam Flooding of Cores Under Northe Sea Reservoir Conditions, SPE/DOE 17360.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. MukherjeeJ., Norris, S.O., Nguyen, Q.P., Sherlin, J.M., VanderwalP.G. and AbbasS.
    [2014] CO2 Foam Pilot in Salt Creek Field, Natrona County, WY: Phase I: Laboratory Work, Reservoir Simulation, and Initial Design, SPE 169166.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. OcampoA., RestrepoA., CifuentesH., HesterJ., OrozcoN., GilC. and CastroE.
    [2013] Successful Foam EOR Pilot in a Mature Volatile Oil Reservoir Under Miscible Gas Injection, IPTC 16984
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Osterloh, W.T. and Jante, M.J.
    [1992] Effects of Gas and Liquid Velocity on Steady-State Foam Flow at High Temperature, SPE, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Schlumberger
    . [2014] ECLIPSE [2014.2] Industry Reference Reservoir Simulator. Retrieved from https://www.software.slb.com/products/eclipse
    [Google Scholar]
  11. . [2014.b] MEPO Multiple Realization Optimizer. Retrieved from https://www.software.slb.com/products//mepo
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Sheng, J.
    [2013] Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Case Studies. Gulf Professional Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Wong, F.Y., Fong, D.K., McIntyreF.J. and KuehneD.L.
    [1997] Design and Field Trial Application of Foam in Production Wells to Improve Conformance. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 36.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. ZhuY., HouQ., WengR., JianG., LuoY. and LiJ.
    [2013] Recent Progress and Effects Analysis of Foam Flooding Field Tests in China. EORC-SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900104
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900104
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