Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
J.S. TANG
JT Petroleum Consulting Co.
Background
Abstract
The Wizard Lake D-3A Pool has been undergoing a tertiary
hydrocarbon miscible flood (HCMF) since 1983 after completing
primary production (1951 1967) and a secondary HCMF (1969
1983). The operation is comprised of three solvent injectors,
four push gas injectors, and 42 production wells. Fresh solvent
injection (2,500 m3/day) was initiated in 1991 to make up for significant solvent coning and changed the flood design from a vertical flood controlled by longitudinal diffusion to a horizontal
flood dominated by transverse diffusion. Recycling in this case
also allows the old propane-plus bank to be replaced by a more
economical ethane-plus blend. Under solvent recycling, the mixing zone would be stabilized (balanced injection and withdrawal)
with its thickness increasing from zero at the injector to the maximum at the producer. The design problem is thus reduced to
finding the solvent residence time at each producer and the corresponding minimum bank thickness needed to maintain miscibility. The 1D diffusion equation coupled with miscibility data
was used to calculate the required bank thickness and a full field
2D streamline model was used to predict the solvent residence
times in this study. New solvent bank thickness design curves
were generated by merging the residence times and the minimum
miscible bank thickness data. Operating strategies based on the
new design curves can potentially reduce the 1994 solvent bank
size of 5.5 million reservoir cubic metres (rm3) to 3.0 million rm3.
The concept applied in Wizard Lake can be extended to other
miscible floods that involve solvent recycling.
Date
Reservoir
Pore Volume
Estimate
(106 m3)
1969
90
max.
end
10.2
8.7
1,180
1,205.4
5.0
4.50
Secondary Miscible
1983
90
max.
end
11.2
4.8
1,182
1,228.4
7.5
6.13
Tertiary Extension
Phase
1991
83.5
actual 10.4
end
4.8
1,211.9
1,228.4
1994
83.5
end
1,229.6
3.0
Bank
Volume
(% PV)
Bank
Volume
(106 rm3)*
Stage of
Operation &
Assumptions
Revised Geology
3.00
Redesign Assuming
Trans. Dispersion Dominant
and Solvent Recycling
*rm3 = reservoir m3
PEER REVIEWED PAPER (REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
36
the time of writing, the new design documented here has been
implemented into the operations of the Wizard Lake flood.
Diffusion Modelling
The 1D transverse diffusion equation(1) is given by
D ij
2 C i C i
=
t ...................................................................................(1)
z 2
sg
C g = 0.5erfc
2 D sgT t
................................................................(2)
zz
zz
sg
so
C s = 0.5erfc
0.5erfc
2 D soT t
2 D sgT t
Co = 1 Cs Cg
........................(3)
..................................................................................(4)
Dispersion Measurements
Wizard Lake field diffusion coefficients were determined from
three data sources, log data, core data, and published values.
Solvent-oil and push gas-solvent contact locations are monitored
regularly using gradiomanometer density logs. The measured density profiles can be converted to concentrations using
FIGURE 2: Well
fluid profile during
solvent reinjection.
June 2001, Volume 40, No. 6
37
Date
Logged
Dso,L
(cm2/s)
Correlation
Coefficient
Dsg,L
(cm2/s)
Correlation
Coefficient
15-9
13-15
9-21
2/2-27
15-9
13-15
1-9
2/2-27
02 Feb/90
13 Feb/90
22 Feb/90
02 Mar/90
04 Feb/91
09 Feb/91
22 Feb/91
04 Mar/91
2.82 10-5
1.32 10-5
1.49 10-5
1.10 10-5
1.66 10-5
4.23 10-6
-
0.944
0.973
0.985
0.989
0.997
0.989
9.76 10-5
2.83 10-4
1.24 10-4
2.54 10-4
0.997
0.941
0.982
0.997
Average
1.47 10-5
Co =
m s
o s
and
C s = 1 C o ...........................................................................................(5)
for the solvent-oil mixing zone. Similarly for the solvent-push gas
zone, the concentration equations are
Cs =
m g
s g
and
Cg = 1 Cs
...........................................................................................(6)
FIGURE 3: Solvent, gas, and oil saturation profiles for Well 13-15
(February 13, 1990).
38
Average
1.90 10-4
Scaled
Core
Data
Theory(4)
(Wilke &
Chang)
Density
Logs
Final
Selected
Values
Dsg,T
(cm2/s)
2 to 5 10-5
1.7 10-4
2.0 10-4
5 10-5
Dso,T
(cm2/s)
1 10-5
2.9 10-5
1.5 10-5
1 10-5
crit
ical
poin
t
Miscibility Limits
A pseudo-ternary diagram representation of the Wizard Lake
HC system at reservoir condition is given in Figure 5. The twophase envelope was generated through a series of flash calculations. Solvent, oil, and push gas were mixed in predetermined
ratios and then flashed to obtain equilibrium vapour and liquid
compositions. The current reservoir oil, solvent, and push gas compositions are represented respectively by points A, C, and D in
Figure 5. Lines A-C and C-D represent, respectively, pure oil/solvent and solvent/gas mixtures. Lines A-B and B-D represent the
first-contact miscible (FCM) limit for the tertiary solvent-oil-push
gas mixture. A minimum solvent concentration of 94% (95 mole
%) is required in the solvent-oil mixture to maintain the FCM condition. In Figure 5, this requirement is represented by the ratio of
length AB to AC. The multiple-contact miscible (MCM) limit is
represented by the intercept between the critical tie-line and line
A-B. A minimum solvent concentration of 73.7 mole % is needed
to establish MCM. A limit of 1 to 99% saturation has been chosen
to define the thickness of a mixing zone (the shaded lines in
Figure 2).
Minimum solvent bank thickness at either FCM or MCM condition can be correlated to solvent residence time. The optimal
condition is illustrated in Figure 6. When a critical solvent concentration of 94% (see above) is maintained at the 1% push gas
front, the oil zone is sufficiently isolated from gas invasion to
ensure FCM condition. The required bank thickness is the vertical
separation between the two HC interfaces. Solvent-oil and solventgas diffusion coefficients of 1 10-5 and 5 10-5 cm2/s were used,
respectively, with Equations (2) to (4) to generate the miscibility
limits in Figure 8 in terms of required solvent thickness for a given
residence time. The calculation procedure is illustrated in
Appendix I. The area below the FCM line in Figure 8 yields a bank
size thicker than the FCM limit. The area between the FCM and
MCM curves represents MCM designs. The area above the MCM
curve represents partially miscible and immiscible designs. When
39
the flood crosses the MCM limit into the immiscible region, there
is a gradual increase in the residual oil saturation. A gas flood
residual saturation will not occur until the oil meets a 100% push
gas front.
respectively, and their relative strengths are proportioned according to actual well rates. Injection and production data for the
month of April 1994 were used to assign source and sink potentials
(well locations in Figure 1). Areal geometry is faithfully duplicated, but the vertical solvent profile is not modelled. The streamline
model predicted radial flow out of the three injectors even though
the wells were drilled on square patterns, and there was considerable variation in well rates.
Areal contours of equal solvent residence time have been generated for the entire field and are plotted in Figure 7. The results
have been used to generate the new solvent thickness redesign
curves of Figure 8. These curves are straight lines correlating residence times to the bank thickness required to sustain FCM and
MCM conditions at fixed radial distances from the central injector.
Each straight line traces the shift in residence time as the solvent
bank thickness changes for a fixed location. When a residence time
line crosses the FCM limit, the process becomes MCM. If the line
crosses the MCM limit, then the process will eventually become
immiscible. Solvent residence time increases directly with increasing zone thickness and distance from the injector provided injection rate is kept constant. The residence times in Figure 8 have
been adjusted for the effects of sweep efficiency, gravity, and the
vertical dimension, as will be described in the next section.
TABLE 4: Application of the streamline model to modify bank size (central injector with two typical offset
producers).
Production
Rate
(m3/d)
Solvent
Bank
Thickness
(m)
Equivalent
Well*
Distance
(km)
Base
Residence
Time
(yr.)
120
120
5.6
0.87
0.56
5.3
1.7
1.00
5.3
1.7
B. Transition Start
90
60
120
5.6
0.87
0.56
5.3
1.7
1.33
(= 120/90)
7.1
2.3
C. Transition End
90
60
120
3.0
0.92
0.56
3.2
1.2
1.33
(= 120/90)
4.3
1.6
120
120
5.6
0.87
0.56
5.3
1.7
1.00
5.3
1.7
D. Transition Start
150
120
180
5.6
0.87
0.56
5.3
1.7
0.80
(= 120/150)
4.2
1.4
E. Transition End
150
120
180
3.0
0.87
0.56
3.2
1.2
0.80
(= 120/150)
2.6
1.0
Step
Average
Rate
(m3/d)
Injection
Rate
(m3/d)
Correction
Factor
Corrected
Residence
Time
(yr.)
Steady-State Operation
F.
120
120
120
3.0
0.87
0.56
3.2
1.2
1.00
3.2
1.2
G.
90
90
90
3.0
0.87
0.56
3.2
1.2
1.33
(= 120/90)
4.3
1.6
H.
60
60
60
3.0
0.87
0.56
3.2
1.2
2.00
(= 120/60)
6.4
2.4
* Streamline model distances were decreased by 14% to correct for flow effects and increased by 9% to correct for sweep efficiency.
Implementation Approach
A correction factor of + 3.7% has been applied to all of the residence time lines in Figure 8, as was justified previously. The
redesign is based on a typical reservoir segment encompassing
June 2001, Volume 40, No. 6
injector 10-9 and producers 1-16 and 16-9 (see Figure 1). Adding
Township 48 and Range 27W4M to the well name completes their
LSD convention. The producing wells represent two rings of wells
with radii of 0.56 and 0.87 km. At the outer wells, it would require
a minimum solvent bank of 3.0 m to operate at the FCM condition.
The redesign is based on the solvent bank reaching the widest part
of the reservoir at flood end. The 1994 injected solvent volume of
5.5 million rm3 would have a thickness of 5.6 m if it reaches the
1,229.6 mSS level. This bank is much thicker than the 3.0 m
required at the outer wells. The 3.0 m bank target is translated into
a bank volume of 3.0 million rm3. Total allocated solvent injection
and withdrawal for the above three-well group is 120 rm3/day. The
typical rate for each producer is 60 rm3/day (2.4% of the total yearly production of 1% HCPV). Two options were studied (see Table
4). Option I reduces injection by 50% to 60 rm3/day while maintaining production in each well at 60 rm3/day. Option II increases
total production to 180 rm3/day while maintaining injection at 120
rm3/day. Boths options require 5.5 years to produce the excess 2.5
million rm3 of solvent, since the over-production is 30
rm3/day/producer. Selection of either option will be influenced by
facility constraints.
The two strategies are illustrated in Figure 8 at the 0.87 km well
location. The starting point is A and it represents the 1994 projected bank thickness at the 1,229.6 mSS level. Calculated residence
times for the 0.56 and 0.87 km producer locations are given in
Table 4. For Option I, reducing the average flow rate from 120 to
90 rm3/d instantaneously increases solvent residence times, and
this is shown as a step change from point A to B. Over-production
of solvent causes the solvent bank to thin and the residence time
41
Conclusions
Based on the foregoing analyses, it is concluded that:
1. Due to the predominantly horizontal cycling of solvent in
Wizard Lake operations, the mixing of miscible fluids (solvent, oil, and push gas) is best modelled as a transverse dispersion process, rather than the more commonly used longitudinal dispersion representation.
2. Based on field fluid density log correlation, scaled core flood
dispersion data and bulk fluid diffusion data, solvent-oil and
solvent-gas dispersion rates are very slow and are dominated
by molecular diffusion. As a result, the push gas-solvent-oil
dispersion process can be modelled as a purely time-dependent process.
3. A calibrated one-dimensional diffusion equation coupled
with a tuned equation-of-state representation of the phase
behaviour of Wizard Lake reservoir fluids has been applied
to uniquely specify the required thickness of the solvent bank
that would maintain either an FCM or MCM condition as a
function of solvent residence time.
4. A two-dimensional areal streamline model, calibrated with
numerical simulation and reservoir data, has been developed
to generate solvent residence times at constant solvent bank
thickness. A process has been outlined (c.f. Figure 8) for
applying the streamline model to develop strategies to reduce
solvent bank size.
5. Within current operations, assuming FCM and MCM conditions are maintained at distances of up to 0.9 km from current
injectors, the 1994 solvent bank can be reduced from 5.5 million rm3 to 3.0 million rm3.
Ao, B
C
C*
d
D
erf-1
erfc
f
FCM
HC
HCMF
HCPV
h
K
Kh
Kr
Kx, Ky
LSD
MCM
Pe
Pe2
Q
r
t
u
Vr ,w
v
x
xo, yo
y
z
Greek Symbols
=
=
=
=
=
ratio of Kx / Ky
angular segment around injectors
fluid dynamic viscosity (Pas)
polar coordinate
fluid density (kg/m3)
Subscripts
a
c
e
g
i,j
m
o
s
T
w
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
NOMENCLATURE
English Symbols
a
42
We considered the hypothetical case of placing a one time solvent slug at the top of the Wizard Lake D-3A Pool and displacing
this bank downward with push gas to the final depth of 1,229.6 m.
Figure 6 illustrates the bank geometry at this position. Based on a
vertical frontal rate of 2 m per year, it would take 27 years to complete the flood. The required final bank thickness can be obtained
by applying Equation (2) at the 1% gas front (z = za) to give
z
g
0.01 = 0.5erfc
2 D sg t
or
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
.........................................(I-1)
where t is the solvent residence time. Applying the critical solvent concentration at the 1% push gas front za (Cs = 0.99 0.94 =
0.93) using Equation (3) yields
z z
so
0.93 = 0.5erfc a
0.01
2 D so t
v=
(y y o )
2B
(x x o )2 (y y o )2
+
Kx
Ky
......................................................(II-4)
2B
K r ( )
r
where
or
zso z a = 2 Dso t erf 1 (0.88)
.....................................................(I-2)
K r ( ) =
cos sin 2
+
Kx
Ky
2
...............................................................(II-5)
2
2
Integrating Vr = u + v around the well radius rw yields the
total flow Q in or out of the well such that
...................(I-3)
Q = hrw Vr ()d =
0
2 Bh
K ( ) d
r
..........................................(II-6)
B=
2 h K r ()d
...........................................................................(II-7)
K P
u= x
x
and
K y P
v=
y ....................................................................................(II-1)
where Kx and Ky are x and y permeabilities, P is pressure and is
solvent viscosity. The continuity equation is
u v
2 P
2 P
Kx 2 + Ky 2 = 0
+
=0
x y
x
y
or
......................................(II-2)
u=
(x x o )
(x x o )2 (y y o )2
+
h K r ()d
Kx
Ky
Q
.....................................(II-8)
and
v=
(y y o )
(x x o )2 (y y o )2
+
h K r ()d
Kx
Ky
Q
.....................................(II-9)
A = 1 / K r ( ) d
0
..........................................................................(II-10)
K y
K x
........................................(II-3)
dx
= u( x, y) = A
dt
i =1
(x x o )
2B
(x x o )2 (y y o )2
+
Kx
Ky
and
June 2001, Volume 40, No. 6
o ,i )
Kx
where Ao and B are constants and (xo,yo) is the location of the well.
Substituting Equation (II-3) into (II-1) yields
u=
(Q i / h )( x x o,i )
(x x
( y y o ,i ) 2
Ky
.........................(II-11)
and
dy
= v( x, y) = A
dt
(Q i / h )( y y o,i )
(x x
i =1
o ,i )
Kx
( y y o ,i ) 2
Ky
.........................(II-12)
43
For injectors, Qi/h > 0 (injection) and for producers, Qi/h < 0
(production). The subscript i denotes each well. Equations (II-11)
and (II-12) can be normalized by dividing the x,y coordinates by a
length scale a, and the individual well rates by the total injection
or production rate Q. The ratio of = Kx/Ky fixes the shape of the
streamlines. Equations (II-11) and (II-12) then become
x x
n
(q i / q )( o,i )
x y
q
a
a
u( , ) = C( )
y y o ,i 2
a a
a i =1 x x o,i 2
(
) + (
)
a
a
a
a
......................(II-13)
x y
q
v( , ) = C( )
a a
a i =1
y y
(q i / q )( o,i )
a
a
x x o ,i 2
y y o ,i 2
(
) + (
)
a
a
a
a
......................(II-14)
(x o + ra cos 2, y o + ra sin 2) .
The incremental time required to reach (x,y) by displacing z
from the starting point is
t =
and
C=
1
2
cos
d
+ sin 2
...............................................................(II-15)
K ( ) d / K ( ) d
r
2
2
where w = u + v is calculated using Equations (II-13) and
(II-14) based on the coordinates of the previous time step. The
coordinates of the streamline at the ith time step is, therefore, given
by
x i = x i 1 + u( x i 1 , y i 1 )t i ...........................................................(II-18)
y i = y i 1 + v( x i 1 , y i 1 )t i ...........................................................(II-19)
and
t i =
z
( u( x i 1 , y i 1 )) + ( v( x i 1 , y i 1 )) 2 ..................................(II-20)
z
w ...........................................................................................(II-17)
.....................................................(II-16)
t(x i , y i ) =
t
k =1
where
K r () = 1 / cos 2 / K x + sin 2 / K y
44
.........................................................................(II-21)
in this approach. For the well configuration in Wizard Lake, typically only 4% of the streamlines generated by the model flowing
out from the injectors would miss all of the producers. A no flow
boundary condition would only alter the shape of the streamlines
slightly. Once the solvent residence time is mapped, then the dispersion equation can be used to redesign the solvent bank size for
the Wizard Lake depletion scheme.
REFERENCES
1. BEAR, J., Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media; American Elsevier
Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 1972.
2. PERKINS, T.K. and JOHNSTON, O.C., A Review of Diffusion and
Dispersion in Porous Media; Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal,
pp.70-84, March 1963.
3. COATS, K.H. and SMITH, B.D., Dead-End Pore Volume and
Dispersion in Porous Media; Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal,
pp.73-84, March 1964.
4. YELLIG, W.F. and BAKER, L.E., Factors Affecting Miscible
Flooding Dispersion Coefficients; Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, pp.69-75, October December 1981.
5. WILKE, C.R. and CHANG, P., Correlation of Diffusion Coefficients
in Dilute Solutions; American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.261-270, June 1955.
6. TODD, M.R. and LONGSTAFF, W.J., The Development, Testing,
and Application of a Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible
Flood Performance; Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp.874-882,
July 1972.
7. MUSKAT, M., Physical Principles of Oil Production; First Edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, Chapter 5, 1949.
8. HURST, W., Reservoir Engineering and Conformal Mapping of Oil
and Gas Fields; The Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa, OK,
1979.
Authors Biographies
Mori Kwan received B.A.Sc. and Ph.D.
degrees in mechanical engineering from the
University of Waterloo and is a member of
APEGGA. He is currently a senior research
specialist with Imperial Oil Resources in
Calgary and has worked on steam-based oil
recovery processes, heavy and conventional
oil core analysis, miscible floods, dispersion, hydrocarbon phase behaviour, and
non-thermal heavy oil recovery processes.
With his untimely passing in 1998, Dr. Jim
Batycky left behind a legacy of outstanding
technical contributions to the Petroleum
Society and the oil industry. Jim was a senior advisor at Imperial Oil Resources and he
also worked for the Petroleum Recovery
Institute in the early 1980s. Jims career
encompassed the areas of reservoir engineering, simulation, miscible flood, reservoir depletion, interfacial phenomena, and
core analysis.
Joseph Tang, the principal of JT Petroleum
Consulting Co., is a fellow of the China
Institute of Atomic Energy and an appointed expert scholar of the United Nations
International Atomic Energy Agency. He
worked for 20 years in oil and gas production research for a major Canadian oil company. Dr. Tang is a distinguished expert in
tracer applications. His other areas of interest include enhanced oil recovery, micellar
flood, multi-phase porous media flow, miscible displacement, flow stability, numerical simulation, non-thermal heavy oil recovery, formation damage, groundwater drift and
contamination, thermal hydrocracking of bitumen, and upgrading.
He holds a Ph.D. degree in chemistry and a M.Sc. degree in chemical engineering from the University of Alberta and is a member of
the Petroleum Society and APEGGA.
45