Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
EOR Prospects for a Mature Oil Reservoir in an Oil Field of Potwar Region,
Pakistan
B. Amjad, M.D. Munawar, M.U. Javeed, University of Engineering and Technology Lahore
Abstract
Enhanced oil and gas recovery is going to be the future option for Pakistani reservoirs sooner or later, when conventional gas
deposits will be running short and oil reservoirs will not be able to continue production under their current depletion
mechanisms.
Reservoir analysed in this study is one of the four vertically stacked heavy oil reservoirs in an oilfield of Potwar region and
producing at lower production rate. This work is an attempt to screen the subject reservoir for future decisions. First fluid
characterisation was executed using experimental PVT data. History match was performed using available production and
reservoir data. Since flowing bottom-hole pressures were unavailable, they were generated using Guo Ghalambor correlation
using tubing head pressure information. Afterwards, reservoir screening was performed using available criteria in the literature
and updated with world EOR survey. Screening dictated the application of miscible carbon dioxide flooding for the subject
reservoir. Also the reservoir pressure was above bubble point, showing the feasibility for CO2 injection. Minimum miscibility
pressure was estimated empirically using Alston et al. correlation and numerically by slim-tube simulation. MMPs resulted
from both methods well agreed.
Three scenarios were made to analyse the performance of reservoir under the influence of revitalization planning. Additional
producer was placed in the subject reservoir, which ceased flow after 16 years adding 1 MMSTB of oil to the reserves.
Injecting water enhanced the life of the reservoir to 24 years yielding 2.8 MMSTB of oil while the application of CO2 miscible
flooding incremented 3.7 MMTSB of oil in the same duration as waterflood.
Results inferred from this study will prove to be a breakthrough in the field of R&D for welcoming enhanced oil recovery in
Pakistan. It also encourages the industry look ahead to the revitalization of mature and aging oil fields.
Introduction
Field XYZ under study was located in Potwar Region of Pakistan which is home to various oilfields which are producing from
light to heavy oils.
The Potwar Basin has been actively explored for hydrocarbons since 1870 and first success came in 1914 when Attock Oil
Company discovered oil at Khaur. The Dhulian, Joyamir and Balkassar field were then discovered by the same company in
1918, 1943 and 1945 respectively. In 1978 Amoco was granted the exploration license in the Northern Potwar. In 1982, the
concession was granted to the Occidental of Pakistan, who discovered oil from the Eocene formations and later from
Paleocene and Permian horizons. Similarly, NOC 1 was also granted exploration license in the Northern Potwar Deformed
Zone (NPDZ), where it drilled several exploratory, appraisal as well as development wells successively.
In 1990, with the help of 3D Seismic Survey for the first time in the history of Pakistan, Rajpet1 field was explored. Fig. 1 is
showing the horizon map of a reservoir in Rajpet oilfield.
Geologically, Rajpet structure is NE-SW trending anticline. The producing part of the structure is pop up block formed
between two thrust faults. The closed area is about 12 sq.km bounded by 1800 m.sec contour 2 .
Field had four vertically stacked reservoirs and to-date 5 wells had been drilled in this field and 4 were producing (as on 3112-2010)
1
2
NOC and Rajpet are alias for operating company and field under study, respectively.
Field introductory documents
CMTC 151422
Wells
Well R1
It was completed in Khewra sandstone and currently under production. Oil API gravity is 19 to 22.5. It is the well, studied in
this work.
Well R2
First completed in Sakessar limestone and ceased flowing after producing for 8 years it ceased flowing. It was recompleted in
Tobra and after producing for 6 years it ceased to flow.
Well R3
Firstly it was completed in Khewra which ceased flowing after 2 years. Later on it was dually completed in Jutana and Tobra
formations. Tobra ceased flowing after 14 months of production while oil Jutana has been producing since then, oil of API
gravity 22 to 17.4.
Well R4
After testing in Khewra, Sakessar and Tobra, well was completed in Tobra. The well was producing oil of around 25 API
with no water.
Well R5
It was completed in Khewra and is producing oil and gas with no water.
Fluid Characterization
The reservoir understudy was Khewra Sandstone. Oil of Khewra was sampled and analysed in1994 by Core Labs.
Characterization of this crude was performed with commercial PVT simulation software; PVTi. Modified Peng-Robinson
(PR3) equation-of-state was fitted to the following lab conducted PVT experiments.
a. Constant Composition Expansion (CCE)
b.
c.
Bubble Point
d.
Separator
Fig. A1 to 13 in Appendix A shows the regressed experiments. The match ended up with overall error of less than 10%.
Where, experimental bubble point pressure was 1964.70 psia and that predicted by equation-of-state (EOS) was 1964.74 psia.
Enhanced Oil Recovery
Producing reserves are called primary when they are produced by primary recovery techniques using the inborn natural
energy of the reservoir. The driving energy may be derived from the liberation and expansion of dissolved gas, from the
expansion of the gas cap or of an active aquifer, from gravity drainage, or from a combination of these effects. But when
reservoir runs short of this energy, external source of vitality is supplied and then the reserves are categorized as improved
recovery reserves. Energy can be provided by any of following secondary and tertiary methods
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Water injection
Gas injection
Miscible gas injection
Thermal flooding
Chemical flooding
Method a and b are secondary and c, d and e are tertiary. But there is no hard and fast rule for classification. From
Worldwide EOR Survey (2010) it can be seen, especially in case of thermal methods that they are applied as primary mode of
production in heavy oil reservoirs of Canada, Venezuela and other regions.
EOR in Pakistan
Concept of EOR application to Pakistani oil reservoirs is not new. Following are reviews of previous research done in EOR for
Pakistani oil fields.
CMTC 151422
b.
Screening subject reservoir (Khewra) for CO2 flooding based on conventional method using results of Worldwide
EOR Survey (2010)
c.
Estimation of MMP for pure CO2 using empirical and numerical techniques
d.
OIP Estimation
Oil in place was calculated using decline curve analysis. Results were agreed well with the material balance estimations
performed by the company in 2005; OIIP 11.5 MMSTB. Fig. 3 shows the decline analysis. Analysis resulted in OIP value of
7.38 MMSTB (as on 31-12-2010) with decline rate of 1.378 per year and abandonment rate of 3 STB/D. Analysis was done
using Fekete Harmony.
History Matching Simulation Model
Simulation model for the subject reservoir was developed and updated with the production history shown in Fig. 2. Results are
shown in Fig. 4 to 6. Since the bottomhole pressures were not available, they were calculated with Guo and Ghalambor (2002)
correlation. This difference of flowing bottomhole pressure simulated with that calculated with the correlation is shown in Fig.
7.
The adequate match in history and simulation was difficult to attain owing to lack of relative permeability and capillary
pressure relationships, which were generated using Stones model. Although BHPs were not matched, it was ascertained that
to-date average reservoir pressure was sufficiently higher than bubble point.
Screening
Table 1 presents the essential reservoir information required for conventional screening. The survey also showed that steam
and CO2 injection were most commonly applied EOR methods across the globe. So this study intends to screen first the
subject reservoir for these two methods. Fig. 8 shows that subject reservoir was not falling within the range for application of
steam flooding mainly due to higher depth and lower porosity and permeability. While from Fig. 9, it was clear that miscible
CO2 flood well suited the reservoir.
CMTC 151422
1 . 06
X vol
X int
(M C 5 + )1 .78
0 . 136
Where, MMPCO = CO2 minimum miscibility pressure for live oil (psia), TR = reservoir temperature (F), MC5+ = molecular
2
weight of C5+ fraction (lb/lb-mole), Xvol = mole fraction of volatile components (C1 and N2), Xint = mole fraction of
intermediate components (C2-4, CO2 and H2S). Substituting the information from Table 2 in Alstons correlation we got
MMPCO = 2071 psia
2
Infill, No injection
2.
Waterflooding
3.
CO2 injection
Infill, No Injection
A new producer: R1A was added to the same reservoir at a distance of 1 kilometre from well R1. It was observed that oil
production from R1A maintained at 500 STB/DAY for two years and then start declining. On the whole, R1A added 1
MMSTBO to the reserves in next 16 years and ceased to flow.
Secondary Waterflooding
An injector W1 was introduced in-between R1 and R1A. Water was set to inject at 4000 psia, as a result 2.8 MMSTBO was
added to the reserves till next 24 years.
Secondary Carbon Dioxide Flooding
Injecting carbon dioxide from same well W1, at miscible conditions yielded double production rates than water and thus
doubled the reserves to 3.7 MMSTBO in next 24 years.
CMTC 151422
LIMITATIONS
Though the whole study was managed sophisticatedly, still following factors might caused ambiguity in results.
Lesser information was available about the subject reservoir than in most simulation studies.
Flowing bottomhole pressure surveys were unavailable. Buo and Ghalambor correlation was used to reimburse for them.
SCAL information was absent; STONE 3 phase model 2 was used to compensate for it.
CONCLUSIONS
Following conclusions were drawn from this study
If well R1 keep on producing under original conditions, it would yield mere 0.5 MMSTB of oil in next 24 years owing to
increased water influx.
Adding a producer R1A to the reservoir added 1 MMSTB of oil to the cumulative production till 2036
Injecting water proved to supplement the life of well R1A till 2044
Miscible CO2 flood doubled the oil rate yielded additional 3.7 MMSTB of oil till 2044
REFERENCES
Ali, S.A., Awan, U., Shafqatullah and Rasheed, U. 2010. Case study of an Oil field in Potwar Region: Reserve Estimation &
Production Enhancement Recommendations. BSc dissertation, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore,
Pakistan.
Alston, R.B., Kokolis, G.P., and James, C.F. 1985. CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressures: A Correlation for Impure CO2
Streams and Live Oil Systems. SPEJ 4: 268-274. SPE-11959-PA. doi: 10.2118/11959-PA
Babadagli, T. 2005. Mature Field Development A Review. Paper SPE 93884 presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference held in Madrid, Spain, 13-15 June. doi: 10.2118/93884-MS.
Bilal Amjad. 2011. Statistical Analysis of EOR Field Experience and Renovation of Conventional Screening Criteria. (paper
unpublished)
BP. 2007. Pop Goes the Polymer. Frontiers 12: 6-11.
BP. 2009. Technology in Action. Frontiers 4: 30-35.
Dong, M., Huang, S., Dyer, S.B., and Mourits, F.M. 2001. A Comparison of CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure
Determinations for Weyburn Crude Oil. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 31 (2001) 13-22.
Iqbal, M.J. 1994. Isolation and Characterization of Oil Degrading Microorganisms and their Possible Role in Enhanced Oil
Recovery. PhD dissertation, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Raza, H.A. and Sheikh, A.M. 1988. In Petroleum for the Future. Pakistan Oil Fields The Pioneers in Exploration and
Production in Pakistan: 151158.
Worldwide EOR Survey. 2010. Oil & Gas J. (14 April).
Fig. 1, Digitized map of Jutana with producers (R1, R2, R3, R4A, R5) and test wells (S and D)
CMTC 151422
CMTC 151422
CMTC 151422
Fig. 8, Coloured lines showing reservoir information (7 parameters) for 119 steam flooding projects, line in yellow was lower threshold limit
for respective range, while line in black is representing subject reservoir [from Bilal (2011)]
CMTC 151422
Fig. 9, Coloured lines showing reservoir information (7 parameters) for 117 Miscible CO2 flooding projects, line in yellow was lower
threshold limit for respective ranges, while line in black is representing subject reservoir [from Bilal (2011)]
10
CMTC 151422
Fig. 10, Inflow and outflow relationhips for well R1. Base case IPR was generated using Pressure data available from a build up test. Future
IPRs and OPRs clearly indicating that even under to-date conditions static reservoir pressure is far above bubble point; proving the
feasibility of CO2 miscible flooding.
CMTC 151422
11
R1A
W1
R1
12
CMTC 151422
APPENDIX A
EOS fitting to the PVT experimental results plays a vital role in overall performance of the reservoir fluid, especially under
carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery mechanism. Following are the grouped composition of crude and plots of regressed
PVT parameters.
Table A1. Crude composition after grouping
Component Composition
(mole %)
N2
1.41
CO2
0.14
C1
24.55
C2+
30.28
C8+
12.87
C15+
14.198
C38+
16.552
CMTC 151422
13
14
CMTC 151422
Separator Test