Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 44

Pilot Polymer Injection using CMG

Reservoir Simulator in a
Productive Layer at TJX Field,
Indonesia

Muhammad Agha Hutama SYUKRON


Master 2 IHR

Reservoir Engineering
Supervisor: Erwin Dicky, Pertamina EP Indonesie
Submission date: July 2016

Option Ingénierie et Hydrodynamique des Réservoirs (IHR)


Universite de Lorraine – Ecole Nationale Superieur de Geologie
Nancy, France.

1
Presented to the Faculty of Hydrodynamics
Reservoir Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Reservoir Engineering

2
MASTER THESIS
PILOT POLYMER INJECTION USING CMG
RESERVOIR SIMULATOR IN A TJX FIELD 2C-
SEGMENT, INDONESIA
Student : Muhammad Agha Hutama SYUKRON

APPROVED BY
SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:

_______________________________
Erwin Dicky

_______________________________
SyaefulAzwar

_______________________________
Irina Panfilova

3
Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors in Pertamina Exploration


Company, Erwin Dicky Dusyanto, Syaeful Azwar and Imam Ardianto for their guidance
during this work. I would also like to thank Irina Panfilova (Responsible for Master 2 in
ENSG) and Cecile Fabre (Responsible for Master 2 in Universite de Lorraine) for their
technical assistance and recommendations.

My sincere appreciation is extended to all staff of Pertamina EP for their immeasurable


amount of help.

I am also thankful to my family for giving me the chance to follow my dreams and above
all, my sincere grateful thanks go to Allah SWT for this wonderful life, family and people
around me.

Jakarta, 22 June 2016

Agha SYUKRON

“I dedicate this work to my beloved parents, brothers, and my future wife“.

4
Pilot Polymer Injection using CMG Reservoir Simulator in a
Productive Layer at TJX Field, Indonesia
Muhammad Agha SYUKRON, Ecole Nationale Superieure
Geologie-Universite de Lorraine, Nancy, France.

Abstract
Nowadays various recovery methods like water flooding, gas flooding and etc. are widely used in
petroleum industry in order to increase hydrocarbon production as much as possible. This
technology allows us to recover up to 10-40% of original oil from the fields. Typically water
injection is used to improve oil recovery while gas injection is used to maintain pressure or to
promote oil gravity drainage. The purpose of adding polymers in water is to increase the
apparent viscosity of water (displacing fluid), which helps to lower the mobility ratio. This
condition maximizes oil-recovery sweep efficiency, creating a smooth flood front with less
viscous fingering. Immiscible gas injection, including injection of CO2, has been considered but
not implemented on a large scale for economic reasons. Furthermore, interest in using chemical
injection in a reservoir has recently developed.

The purpose of this research is to examine efficiency of polymer flooding for improved oil
recovery for TJX field C Zone block 2 by doing the simulation study on compositional reservoir
model. However, pilot testing in large reservoirs is very expensive and requires a long time to
complete. This project is less problematic in pilot testing of small and thin reservoirs in onshore
field.

Firstly, by using CMG software, history matching has to be achieved on the Field C-segment. The
history matching was done by adjusting base reservoir model properties, changing the shape of
relative permeability curve, transmissibility and KH values of production wells. The best possible
history match was gained after applying all modification, which are stated above. Secondly,
before doing field scale enhanced oil recovery research, polymer flooding was not simulated
despite there was a pilot polymer injection in 2012. The result of this pilot is also not good
enough. So in this research we simulated on three dimension synthetic models which was built
based on rock and fluid properties of TJX field2C-Segment. By assuming the model is flat and
homogenous. In case of the C-Segment the injector well T-59Iw was chose for EOR study due to
high residual oil saturation around the well compare to T-60Iw. Two sensitivity analysis, chemical
solution concentration effect and injection rate effect were performed to evaluate the efficiency
of polymer flooding in C-Segment. Refer to the laboratory’s results, the concentration of
polymer that will be used is 0.6 kg/m3 and the best injection rate low (3000-6000 Sm3/day),
polymer flooding simulation forecasted that there are an increasing of oil production.

The oil recovery increased in the range of 2.5-5% and it allows us conclude that with the
reservoir model on which the study was done; polymer flooding is favorable for TJX field 2C-
Segment as Enhanced Oil Recovery methods.

5
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................iv
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... xiii
Nomenclature................................................................................................................. xviii
Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Enhanced Oil Recovery...……………………................................................................ 8
1.2 Review of CMG……............................................................................................... 10
1.2.1 Builder………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
1.2.2 IMEX…………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
1.2.3 STARS….……………………………………………………………………………………………..11
Chapter 2: Literature Review............................................................................................ 12
2.1 Polymer flooding ................................................................................................. 12
2.1.1 Mechanics and Behavior of polymer flooding…........................................ 12
2.1.2 Type of Polymer …………........................................................................... 16
2.1.3 Criteria for Polymer Flooding………......................................................... 17
2.2 TJX Field…………………………………………………………................................................... 18
2.2.1 Executive Summary…………………………………............................................. 19
2.2.2 Geology…………………………………………………………....................................... 21
2.2.3 TJX Field 2C-segment…………………………………........................................... 23
2.2.4 The CMG model of 2C-Segment………………………………………….................. 25
Chapter 3: Simulation and Discussion…………………………………………................................... 32
3.1 History Matching………………................................................................................. 32
3.2 Production and Forecast………………………………..................................................... 34
3.3 Polymer Flooding in TJX 2C-Segment…………………............................................... 34
3.3.1 Polymer Concentration effect…..………………………………………................... 35
3.3.2 Injection Rate effect………………………………………………………….................... 35

6
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 53
Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 54
References..................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 57
A. Polymer Introduction in CMG Simulator ............................................... 57
B. Eclipse Data File for TJX Field 2C-Segment ............................................ 58
C. Polymer Input File.................................................................................. 58

List of Tables

Table 1.1 ............................................................................................................................ xiii


Table 1.2 ……....................................................................................................................... xiii

List of Figure

Figure 1.1 Viscosity criteria for EOR processes .............................................................................. 10

Figure 2. 1 Remaining oil saturation after water and polymer flooding. ....................................... 14

7
8
Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1.1 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)

Oil and gas production life of hydrocarbon fields are divided in several phases. In the
initial stage, oil and gas production from the reservoir occurs due to natural
mechanisms. In the next stage when the reservoir pressure is not enough for supporting
the production from the formations, water is injected in order to uphold the
hydrocarbon production. The water flooding is main driving mechanism for maintaining
reservoir pressure because of availability and low cost of injection fluid. But oil recovery
in this flooding process is not high enough due to following reasons [ ]:
• Reservoir heterogeneity
• Problems related to the well siting and spacing
• Unfavorable mobility ratio

In the tertiary recovery stage (EOR), it is possible to recovery almost 30-60% of the field’s
OOIP (original oil in place), which is high compare to primary and secondary recovery
methods where recovery factor is equal to 20-40% [ ]. The main types of EOR are:
• Thermal recovery
• Gas flooding
• Chemicals flooding
• MIOR or Microbial IOR

Thermal recovery is an enhanced oil recovery method where steam or air is injected to
the heavy oil reservoirs to decrease the viscosity of oil. During this process the mobility
ratio decreases and oil flows towards production wells. This EOR method is widely used
in unconventional oil fields of Venezuela and Canada.

Gas flooding has been broadly used in oil industry. In gas injection process the interfacial
tension between water and oil reduces that leads better displacement efficiency. Carbon
dioxide is main injection fluid for this method due to its low cost and because it
decreases oil viscosity.

Chemical flooding consists of two processes: polymer flooding and surfactant-polymer


flooding. To produce oil that trapped in reservoir surfactants are injected and then
polymer to decrease the mobility ratio of oil and water, which gives favorable volumetric
sweep efficiency.

Microbial injection is not usual EOR method nowadays because of its high cost.

9
From figure 1, 2 and 3 it is observable that depth, permeability and viscosity are the key
factors that need to be considered and evaluated before applying enhanced oil recovery
methods for specific oil fields [ ].

Figure 1.1 Viscosity criteria for EOR processes

Figure 1.2 Depth Criteria for EOR methods.

10
Figure 1. 3 Permeability criteria for EOR methods.

1.2 Review of CMG

Using reservoir simulators to predict and understand the processes taking place during
chemical flooding is currently of renewed interest to the industry due to high current
oil prices and thus the greatly increased interest in enhanced oil recovery. Over the past
30 years, chemical flooding simulators have become more and more complex. Chemical
flood simulators are used in academia and industry to help understand, optimize,
interpret and design chemical flooding processes. As with other simulators, chemical
flooding simulators are often used to history match and understand the results of core
floods or field performance. Pope and Nelson (1978), Todd and Chase (1979), Fleming et
al. (1981), Dogru et al. (1984), Datta-Gupta et al. (1986) and Scott et al. (1987) were
among the first to publish papers on chemical flooding simulators.

11
1.2.1 Builder

A Windows-based application, is a menu-driven reservoir simulation model creation,


editing and visualization program for generating input data for all CMG reservoir
simulators – IMEX, GEM, STARS. Builder simplifies the creation of simulator models by
providing a framework for data integration and workflow management between CMG's
reservoir simulators and the "outside world". Builder is used for:
 Streamlining data integration and workflow management in conjunction with
Results
 Manipulating and checking data, and creating tables from correlations
 Inputting data from 3rd-party reservoir simulators and translating into direct or
indirect translation
 Accurately importing data from 3rd-party geological modeling programs

1.2.2 IMEX- Three-Phase, Black-Oil Reservoir Simulator

One of the world's fastest conventional black oil reservoir simulators is used to obtain
history matches and forecasts of primary, secondary, and enhanced or improved oil
recovery processes. In addition, IMEX models complex, heterogeneous, faulted oil and
gas reservoirs, using millions of grid blocks, to achieve the most reliable predictions and
forecasts. Use IMEX for screening prospects, setting up pilot designs, monitoring and
optimizing field operations, and improving production performance.

1.2.3 STARS

STARS is the undisputed industry standard in thermal and advanced processes reservoir
simulation. STARS is a thermal, k-value (KV) compositional, chemical reaction and geo-
mechanics reservoir simulator ideally suited for advanced modeling of recovery
processes involving the injection of steam, solvents, air and chemicals. The robust
reaction kinetics and geo-mechanics capabilities make it the most complete and flexible
reservoir simulator available.

Regardless of the size or the complexity in TJX Field, IMEX and STARS are effective tools
to fulfill this research.

12
Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Polymer Flooding

Polymer flooding is one of the chemical enhanced oil recovery methods and has been
introduced in late 1960s. In this chemical EOR method polymer is added to injected water in
order to increase injected fluid viscosity and to improve oil displacement in the reservoirs.

According to reports, the first commercially success was gained in Daqing oil field of China
where oil recovery factor increased up to 20% after applying polymer flooding technique.
After some successful projects, currently it is believed that polymer flooding can be
profitable EOR technique.

2.1.1 Mechanics and Behavior of Polymer Flooding

The purpose of polymer flooding is improving sweep efficiency and consequently enhanced
oil recovery which is gained due to the following processes:

1. Increase in viscosity of injected fluid


2. Decrease in water and oil mobility ratio
3. Decrease in a volume of capillary trapped oil

All these processes lead higher oil recovery than water flood case. Figure 4 illustrates the
result of laboratory where clearly can be seen that polymer flooding is more efficient than
water flooding.

13
Figure 2. 1 Remaining oil saturation after water and polymer flooding.

The reservoir key parameters of field, specifically, mobility ratio, effective porosity,
permeability,mobile oil saturation, volumetric sweep and etc. should be discussed in detail
before starting any project [].

Mobility Ratio. Based on the study of DYES, CAUDLE and ERICSON (1954), the mobility ratio
is defined as:

According to the equation of mobility ratio, a good displacement happens when the ration is
equal to one or less than one. Therefore to get low M, chemicals are added to injected fluid
in order to increase water viscosity with aim of to lower mobility factor.

The volumetric sweep efficiency is not good throughout water flooding and the main
problem is this recovery method is a fingering effect as shown in figure 5. But during
polymer flooding, sweep efficiency increases due to decreasing the effect of fingering
compare to water flooding.

14
Figure 2.2 The effect of fingering in water and polymer flooding [4].

Figure 6 demonstrates the effect of viscosity ratio on oil recovery. It is clear that by
increasing the viscosity of displaced fluid, the oil recovery can be increased.

Figure 2.3 Influence of viscosity ratio on oil recovery [ ].

15
Permeability. Permeability is a key parameter for polymer flooding. According to studies,
polymer flooding can be applied to field where permeability value is in the range of 20-
2300mD [8].

Effective porosity. It describes pores that are connected with other pores in rock where flow
occurs. The effective porosity also defines the recoverable hydrocarbon of reservoir and the
amount of chemical that will be needed for the polymer flooding

Initial water saturation. According to some studies the reservoirs with high water saturation
are not acceptable candidates for polymer flooding.

Water salinity. The water salinity has a great effect on mobility, adsorption and permeability
reduction features of polymers. Adding salt to polymer solutions leads to the change in
shape of molecules where its shape transforms from inflated to spherical form. Figures 7 and
8 show the steep decrease in solution viscosity when 3% NaCl is added to polyacrylamides
while in case of Xanthan polysaccharide, added salt does have a big effect.

Viscosity. The relationship between these parameters is described as,

The unit of viscosity is the poise and because one poise signifies a high viscosity; centipoise is
mainly used for field measurements. A liquid’s viscosity depends on the flow velocity, the
size and shape of fluid atoms and the interactions between those atoms.

16
2.1.3 Type of Polymers

Polymers used in enhanced oil recovery methods are divided into two groups: synthetic
polymers and biopolymers.

Synthetic polymers

This is a type of polymers that are produced synthetically and polyacrylamide - water soluble
polymers are the one of the widely used synthetic polymers for EOR. Polyacrylamides can be
in various forms: in liquid phase, gel, powder and so on.

Biopolymers

Biopolymers are formed by living organisms. The molecular weight and structure of
biopolymers are smaller than synthetic polymers. Therefore it gives hardness that causes a
good viscos effect in salinity water and a bad viscos effect in fresh water.

17
2.1.4 Criteria for Polymer Flooding

In 2007 Kaminsky et al. proposed the schematic of processes for the appraisal and
development of polymer flood projects (Figure 14).

Figure 2.4 Polymer Flood Project Evaluation and Development Process [16].

The first step is the screening of reservoir where reservoir geometry and fluid, rock features
are studied due to the passing criteria. If the properties of suggested reservoir are matched
with the screening criteria, further deep investigations like modeling, laboratory works, and
reservoir specification can be considered. Eventually these phases result in a technical-
economical evaluation.

18
The next phase is to determine targets and structure the pilot test. After successful study on
pilot test, the profitable scenario is developed and improved; this involves field scale
modeling and an operation strategy that examines realization, observation and operations.

Selection of EOR pilot area and injection zone are usually made base on the following
criteria:
a. Pilot area should be located in representative reservoir characteristics (not
too high quality and not too poor) with adequate reservoir continuity (no
sealed faults within the flood pattern).
b. Injection zone represent dominant lithology with average shale/clay content,
representative thickness interval, and representative vertical continuity (shale
barriers).
c. In multi-zone fields, where one zone has to be selected for testing the EOR
process, the selected zone should represent average depletion conditions at
the time of EOR implementation. This means virgin and completely drained
zones should be avoid. This make sense considering that the objective of EOR
pilot is to determine the respond in oil production after the injected chemical
contact the reservoir oil. In other words, in fully depleted reservoirs, the
injected chemicals will most likely and dominantly contact water.
Selection of type, size, and number of flood pattern for EOR pilot area are generally guided
by following criteria:
a. Type of flood pattern is determined using the same criteria describe of
waterflood optimization. That is, total lifting capacity of producing wells
should be equal or exceed maximum injection rate in the flood pattern.
b. Size of flood pattern is generally small enough to allow quick responds to
injected EOR material but large enough to avoid premature breakthrough. It
should be remembered that pattern size also impacts the amount of required
chemicals and consequently, pilot total cost. Adequate breakthrough time is
generally within six month.
c. Number of flood patterns in the EOR pilot area depends on several factors
such as budget limitation, reservoir heterogeneity, drilling cost, prices of
chemicals, and degree of accuracy expected from pilot evaluation. In general,
reservoir engineers prefer to include some confined producers within the
pilot area. For example, 4 inverted 5-spot patterns will include one confined
producer, 6 inverted 5-spot patterns will include two confined producers, and
9 inverted 5-spot patterns will include four confined producers.
d. Selection of pilot EOR area and number of flood patterns also depend on the
degree of utilization of existing wells while maintaining uniform pattern

19
shapes. Usually, several alternatives are formulated and their costs are
calculated to provide the basis for final selection.
e. Reservoir simulation (using EOR simulator) of the pilot area is useful in
determining optimum injection rate, breakthrough time, expected gain in oil
rate, expected water cut trend, etc. In addition, the simulation model can be
used to design the pilot injection process including the effects of chemical
concentration, chemical adsorption, optimum slug sizes, and effluent
composition.
Selection and design of chemical flood process depend on reservoir characteristics, oil
composition, water salinity, water hardness, and desired incremental oil recover. In chemical
floods, surfactants improve displacement efficiency (Ed) by decreasing the residual oil
saturation (Sor) as follows:
Ed = 1 – (SorBoi) / (SoiBor)
Polymer solutions have high viscosity and consequently, reduce the mobility ratio of the
flood. Lower mobility ratios correspond to higher sweep efficiency (Ev).
Ev = EaEy = f(M)
M = (krw µo) / (kro µw)
Er = EdEv = f(M and Sor)
Therefore, combination of surfactant and polymer will result in much higher incremental
recovery factor.

20
2.2 TJX Field
2.2.1 Executive Summary

Balikpapan

TJX

Figure 2.5 Map Location

Geographically Regional Operations PT Pertamina (Persero) Business Unit Pertamina EP


(Cape) is located in Tabalong, South Kalimantan Province, around 240 km Northeast of
Banjarmasin. Start operated by PT Pertamina of 1965.

21
2.2.2 Geology

Figure 2.6 Stratigrafy at Barito Bassin

TJX Field is an asymmetric anticline structure trending northeast-southwest, spacious ± 27


km2, and strati-graphically divided into several productive layers, namely; A, B, C, D, E, F, and
P, with the depth varied between 645 up to 2161 meters. Except for the volcanic layer P, all
of which are powered sandstone thrust combination gas and water drive solution that is
deposited on the delta environment.

This field porosity varies between 8 to 27%, permeability ranges from 0.03 to 3900 mD,
while the condition of the initial water saturation ranges from 28 to 90%. The oil contained
in the formation TJX included in the group of paraffin with 40,3º API specific gravity (pour
point 98º F). TJX field until now has 145 wells. Based on consideration of several factors such
as; initial volumetric oil reserves of 628 MMBBL, geological interpretations, the study of

22
pressure and radius dewatering each of wells in each reservoir, successes such as polymer
injection, and so on, the field is expected to produce oil TJX in average of 7500 bopd during
the year 2016. OOIP in layer C TJX field has 141.730.000 BBLand for cumulative production is
36.068.386 BBL.

Reservoir C

This layer is the main productive reservoir in the TJX field, with a maximum thickness
of 20 meters. The reservoir consists of several distributor channels which have the
better depositional environment than another layer in this structure. Some of the
upper channel has properties that interrupt underneath the channel, making
interpretation of logs in sorting bedding is becoming increasingly difficult. The sand
layer C is not unduly influenced by impurities such as shale and other minerals,
reservoir C indicates that this layer is dominated by rock brownish white sand, small
to medium sized grains, slightly rounded and angular, as well as disaggregated from
poor to quite good. Price porosity ranging between 20 to 25 %, while the variation of
the average permeability is around 200 mD.

Reserves

Hydrocarbon in Place Static Model (Geology)

Calculation of hydrocarbon in place is the result of calculation of the coarse model


that used as input for reservoir simulation process. In Table 4.1 shows the
comparison between Geo-models with Dynamic Model for layer C.

Tabel 2.1 Comparison between Geo-Model with Dynamic Model For Zone C.
G&G /
Reserve Simulation gap
Lapisan Volumetric
MMSTB MMSTB MMSTB %
C 156.99 153.91 153.93 0.01
ABCD 492.24 522.61 530.62 1.53

23
Forecasting Analysis Layer C is based on changes Decline Rate in each well then
analyzed the differences decline rate to obtain the period of the decline. Analysis of
the decline in production in Zone C is done by using Software OFM, 2005. Fields TJX
forecasting analysis based on the contract between Pertamina Oil and Gas Asset 5
with SKK Migas until 2035. Summary of results Decline Curve Analysis (DCA) Layer
C TJX based Q economic limit is shows as follows:

Tabel 2.2 Summary DCA Production Rate , EUR and Remaining Reserve Zone A, B, C, D based on Q Economic
Limit
Risked In Place Np Total RF Total Np RF Np RF Di Di te ER EUR Peak Peak
OOIP
Lapisan (90% x P1) Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Primary Secondary (Economic Primary Secondary
MMSTB MMSTB MMSTB % MMSTB % MMSTB % (% Tahun) (% Tahun) Limit) % MMSTB (bbl/day) (bbl/day)
A 195.64 176.08 50.40 28.62 32.48 18.44 17.93 10.18 12.14 11.44 1/31/2035 33.65 59.25 10833.34 5284.76
B 77.81 70.03 10.13 14.47 5.60 8.00 4.53 6.46 6.53 6.53 1/31/2035 28.06 19.65 3382.64 1054.93
C 153.91 138.52 33.84 24.43 28.44 20.53 5.40 3.90 11.28 11.28 1/31/2035 34.71 48.08 20103.65 1956.42
D 95.25 85.73 15.50 18.08 11.10 12.95 4.40 5.13 5.86 5.86 1/31/2035 34.47 29.55 3994.87 1146.37
ABCD 522.61 470.35 109.87 23.36 77.62 16.50 32.25 6.86 8.19 8.19 1/31/2035 33.73 156.53 38314.50 9442.48

Figure 2.7 Decline Curve Analysis for C Layer Based on Contract Until 2035

24
CHAPTER 3: HISTORY MATCHING
A. Objectives
 Review and finalize the history matching for time period till 2015.
 Review and discuss preliminary history matching result during water injection
period.
 Discuss EOR potential including method selection and EOR pilot location and
design.
 Make a splitting simulation model at Representative Zone and Structure (Zone
C).
 Forecasting base case and make a development scenario.

B. Review and finalize the history matching for time period from 1962-1995

GGR estimated that in Zone C IOIP is 153.91MMBBL and at the first step of history
matching, from the simulation result the value of IOIP is 141.73 MMBBL, it means
that there is 7% of gap.

An acceptable history match of liquid rate, watercut, and reservoir pressure vs. time
during primary recovery period (1975-1995) has been achieved by applying the
following modifications:

 Utilization of critical water saturation (Swcrit) with values related to irreducible


water saturation (Swc) based on Swcrit = 1.5 Swc for all rock types in order to
decrease the watercut in the early primary recovery period
 Increasing water relative permeability end-point (krw0 = krw at Sorw) in order to
provide higher watercut near the end of primary recovery period

25
Figure 3.1 Relative Permeability Curve Modification at Rock Type 4

 It is noted that liquid production rate from simulation model is generally


lower than actual by about 1000 BFPD. It is believed that this difference is due
to the lack of injectivity in the simulation model where injection rate is always
lower than actual. This phenomenon is always true regardless of reservoir
characteristics and geologic features of the simulation model. Accordingly, the
effort should be focused on fixing the injectivity before making any
adjustment in simulation model.
 After resolved the injectivity issue, the additional injection and liquid
production rate automatically increased the watercut and the result in
acceptable match.

26
Figure 3.2 Water Injection Rate per Field (bwipd)

Figure 3.3 Water Production Rate per Field (bwfpd)

 Increasing absolute permeability and transmissibility distribution in the area


of zone C in order to provide more water flow to certain wells.

27
Tabel 3.1 Applied Modification for TJX Field Simulation Model
Well Modification

T-017 Transmissibility Multiplier changed to 50 at 7-12 layers.

T-018 Transmissibility changed to 50 at all perforation layers.

T-053 Transmissibility changed to 50 at 3-4 layers.

T-39 Transmissibility changed to 50 at all perforation layers

T-51 Transmissibility changed to 50 at all perforation layers

T-058 Transmissibility changed to 80 at 2-7 layers.

Transmissibility changed to 100 at 1-13 layers.


T-063
Transmissibility changed to 110 at all perforation layers and multiplied by 2.

T-073 Permeability changed from 100-600 mD at 1-3

T-079 Permeability changed to 600 mD at 7-9

T-084 Transmissibility changed to 100 at 4-12

T-91 Removed 1 data point above 490 bwpd in 2013/2/1

T-94 Removed 1 data point above 400bwpd in 1980/6/1

T-96 Removed 4 data points above 200bopd in 83,84, 88, 92

Permeability changed to 1200 mD and transmissibility to 50 md at 7-12 layers


T-097
Removed 2 data points above 2400 bopd and 950 bopd in 82 and 88

T-098Iw Transmissibility changed to 250 at 1-13 layers.

T-107 Transmissibility changed to 50 at all perforation layers

T-113 Removed 1 data point above 230bopd in 2013/2/1

T-0114 Transmissibility changed to 100 at all perforation layers

T-0116 Permeability changed to 600 mD at 7-13 layers.

Transmissibility changed to 100 at 2-4 layers


T-121
Removed 2 data points above 1400 bopd in 2010/07 and 2014/06 accordingly 1 data
above 1200 bwpd in 2014/05

T-126 Removed 1 data point above 2000bwpd in 2011/12/1

28
T-158 Transmissibility changed to 50 at all perforation layers

T-170 Permeability changed to 250 mD at 2-6 layers.

 Added three small aquifer regions (as shown in the map below) with the
following characteristics:
Aquifer type Carter Tracy (analytical)
Permeability Region 1: 75 mD
Region 2: 800 mD
Region 3: 100 mD
Porosity 0.4
Compressibility default
Radius default
Thickness default
Angle 3600

These aquifer regions are added to dynamic model in order to provide water
source representing water influx from the flank into nearby producing wells.
 Adding three small aquifer regions (one grid block each)
 Some individual wells are not matching, this issue caused by localize changes
between injector and producer or some adjustments in individual injection
rates into various zones.
 Another reason, the lack of individual well matching under water-flood
conditions could be related to allocation or production data errors.

Actually The rule of thumb in Indonesia, The Oil and Gas Companies have to achieve at
least 80% degree of matching for well production cumulative with the production
history to reach a minimum validity level.

29
Review and discuss preliminary history matching result during water
injection period
The properties around the injection well are modified in order to match the injection
rate, effect on nearby producing wells evaluated from the new simulation run (with the
modifications).
Table 3.2 Analyse per Well in TJX Field
Well Injection zone Degree of matching Hydraulic Comments
fracturing
T-014Iw C (98-99) C Matching None Surrounding producers:
T-032,T-108,T-079
Delta q inj = 900 bwpd
T-015Iw C (95-06) C Matching None Surrounding producers:
T-052 liquid rate increase by 100-150 BFPD add
high watercut 80-90%
T-017Iw CD (95-97) Early not match None Expected leak from zone D into zone C.
Later match Allocate the early difference in injection rate to
zone C.
Delta q inj = 2000 (early) bwpd
T-022Iw CD (07-13) Early matching, None Modify properties around injector according to
later no match respond surrounding wells:
T-115 liquid rate increase up to 300 at watercut
80%, later up to 700 at 90%
T-112 not applicable
T-136 liquid rate increase by 200 at WC 60%-90%
T-148 not applicable
T-133 not applicable
Accordingly, apply modification in corridor to
south-west covering T-115 and T-136.
Delta q inj = 300 bwpd
T-023Iw CD (07-13) Early matching, None Removed 1 data point above 800 bwpd
later no match
Delta q inj = 300 bwpd
T-029Iw C (95-97) Early matching, None Suspected leak from zone D into zone C between
later no match 1998 and 2002. Accordingly, open zone C during
the time period.
Delta q inj = 500 - 1000 bwpd
T-034Iw ABCD(00-14) Not matching None This well is located within the area that was
completely assigned low permeability. This well also produces
700 bfpd at WC 100%. These indicate that
permeability is reasonably high around this well.

30
Accordingly modify low permeability region or
include large corridor to high permeability region.
T-102 not applicable
T-101 liquid increase up to 700 then decline while
WC continued to increase to 96%
T-045 liquid increase up to 100 and WC up to 97%
T-154 liquid sharp increase to 700 with WC 95%
Use V-shape corridor to North-North-West, and
vary the modification by zone. Or use pressure data
as guideline.
Delta q inj = 1000 - 3000 bwpd
T-035Iw C Not matching None Open zone C in simulation model. There is
completely suspected leak of injected water from zone D
during limited periods (95-96 and 05-06).
Use straight contour coridor in north-west direction
starting T-121 and in north direction to T-030.
Accordingly, use zig-zag contour in west direction
starting T-114 until T-060
T-38Iw C Partially matching, No modification
T-042 CD (95-97) Partially matching, None Applied modification in zone C.
but generally below
CD (06-on) Removed 1 data point above 10000 bwpd
actual
Delta q inj = 400 bwpd
Surrounding wells:
T-010 liquid rate increase up to 200 WC over 97%
T-141 not applicable
T-144 liquid rate increase gradually up to 1300 at
WC 98% then decrease sharply in 2011 due to
squeezing
T-137 not applicable
T-145 not applicable
T-099 liquid rate increase up to 500 at WC 98%
T-008 not applicable
Use V-shape corridor from injector to the affected
producers (T-010, T-144, and T-099)
Delta q inj = 2000 (early) bwpd
T-047Iw DC (02-on) Early not match None Expected leak from zone D in early period
Later match Surroundingwells:
T-032, T-122, T-04, T-108, T-051, T-049, T-131
Open zone C in early period and apply necessary
modification to permeability corridor

31
Delta q inj = 500 - 1500 bwpd
T-048Iw DC Early not match None No modification needed
Later match
T-055Iw DC Early match later None Removed 2 data point above in 1998 and 2012
not match which are extremely out of rates.
Delta q inj = 300 bwpd Delta q inj = 1000 bwpd
T-056Iw DC Early match later None Removed 1 data point above 1300 bwpd
not match
Delta q inj = 300 bwpd
T-059Iw DC (96-99) Not match None No modification needed

T-063Iw CD (96-00) Early match later None No modification needed


not match
T-066A DC (95-99) Early match later None Applied modification in zone C
not match
Delta q inj = 200 bwpd
T-066Iw No modification needed
T-068T Early not match None Modification properties is not needed
Later match
T-072Iw C Not match none Some perforation exist between B and D
completely
Delta q inj = 100 (early) bwpd
T-077Iw D (96-00) Not matching None No modification needed
completely
DC (00-on)
T-080Iw DC (95-on) Early not match None No modification needed
later match
T-082Iw DC (95-98) Generally not None Apply modification in D and C
matching
D (98-01) Delta q inj = 6000 (early) bwpd, 1000 – 3000 (later)
bwpd
DC (01-on)
T-083Iw C Not matching None No modification needed
completely
T-084Iw CD (95-01) Early matching later None Expected leak from zone D into zone C in 09
not match
D (01-on) Delta q inj = 800 - 1000 bwpd
Remove data point above 4500
T-092Iw C Not matching None Expected leak from zone D into zone C in 99
Removed 1 data point above 2400 bwpd
Delta q inj = 200 bwpd
T-093Iw Removed data point above 2000
T-097Iw C Completely none Removed data point above 2000 bwpd
matching
Delta q inj = 50 - 100 bwpd

32
T-098Iw C Not matching None Expected leak from zone D to zone C
Accordingly, open zone C from beginning and
modify zone D up to 2000 bwpd
Delta q inj = 150 bwpd
T-099Iw C Not matching None No modification needed
completely
T-102Iw Remove data point above 6000 bwpd
T-105Iw DC Early matching later None No modification needed
not match
T-106A C Not matching none Removed 1 data point above 900 bwpd
completely
Apply modification in zone C to get up to 1000
bwpd
Delta q inj = 100 - 350 bwpd

 It is expected that liquid production during waterflood period will indicate an


acceptable match if the water injection rate is matched. The oil rate (or water
cut) may or may not indicate an acceptable match since it is function of
relative permeability. Unfortunately, any revisions to relative permeability
curves may have negative effect on history match quality during primary
recovery period. In this case, it is suggested to utilize additional local grid
changes between injectors and producers that have significant watercut
issues. It should be remembered that these process is a trial and error effort.
 To apply permeability and transmissibility modification for communicating
injector/producer combination, the following corridors of simulation grid
blocks are applied:

Figure 3.5 Applied Method which use to adjust permeability and transmibility in linear coridor

33
Figure 3.6 Applied Method which use to adjust permeability and transmibility in zig-zag coridor

 If several producers around a given injector are all communicating with the
injector, the corridor for a modifying permeability and transmissibility can be
shaped according to the well arrangement.
 The value of permeability or transmissibility modifier and number of grid
blocks included in the corridor are adjusted in the multiwall communication
system accordingly to the observed effect on watercut and liquid rate of
individual well
 It is suggested to review available FMI data to determine the possibility of
natural fracture near certain injection well which could provide high
injectivity. This is required to justify the increase in permeability or
transmissibility through utilize in history matching in injection wells.
 The modification of permeability and transmissibility applied to all injectors
and producers (increased), but it is suggested to revise the permeability
transform for the zone under consideration in the dynamic model.
 It is recommended to review the final results of permeability and
transmissibility modification summarized in the above tables (for injectors
and producers) to determine possible regional phenomena of high
permeability regions and its relation to geologic model. These phenomena
should be summarized and included in the recommendation for next study
update in terms of modifying permeability transforms by zone or by region. In
some cases, these regional trends are related to depositional environment.
A. Pilot Project Polymer

Simulasi Reservoir Lapisan C

34
Prediction or forecasting (Forecast) is the final step in making the reservoir simulation
after the match finished production history. This stage aims to find or view the simulated
reservoir behavior in the future. In this case we will forecast the production until the
desired time (2035) as a contract. Moreover, this prediction is also done in order to try a
variety of alternative development scenarios that can be applied at Layer C TJX Field.
Scenarios are recommended for TJX Field development by conducting pilot injection
using existing pattern.

It is recommended to change the method from waterflood to another EOR method


because we can state that the injected water cumulative in TJX field is already near the
limit. This may lead to some contradicting situation where the injection rate should be
increased in one zone but decrease or stopped in another zone.

Tabel 3.3 Prediction Result from Optimation Scenario in C Zone


NP RF Rec.Res.Oil Add RF Incre.Cum.Oil Incre.RF
No Skenario
MMSTB % MMSTB % MMSTB %
30.09 22.84 - - - -
1 History Matching Blok
1,2 Lapisan A, B, C, D

2 Base Case 34.97 26.55 4.88 3.71 - -

3 Waterflood Optimation 43.17 32.78 13.08 9.94 8.20 6.23

4 Polymer Injection

Discuss EOR potential including method selection and EOR pilot location and
design
1. Based on the maximum bottom hole injection pressure in TJX field, values of 200-
3000 psi, it can be predicted that only CO2 or a light hydrocarbon liquids could
achieve near miscibility condition (reasonable estimate of minimum miscibility
pressure, MMP, can be calculated from miscibility correlations or measured in
laboratory using slim tube equipment). In view of difficulties associated with CO2
sources and prices, CO2miscible flood does not appear to be viable for this reservoir.
Also, light hydrocarbon liquids are very expensive even if miscible slug concept is
applied. In addition, the high current water saturation within this reservoir (due to

35
waterflood) reduces the contact efficiency between injected solvent and reservoir oil.
Accordingly, miscible flood methods are excluded from applicability in TJX structure.
2. In view of the above considerations, it appears that only chemical flood methods
should be evaluated for possible application in TJX structure. The most common
chemical floods include Alkaline, Polymer, Surfactant, and their various combinations
(AP, AS, PS, and ASP).
3. It should be remembered that EOR applications (such as chemical floods) are
extremely complex and require repeated high quality studies, extensive laboratory
testing and consume long period of time as well as require highly qualified
professionals and field personnel. Accordingly, it is recommended that this effort
towards EOR application should start as soon as possible with high quality and
adequately accurate database.
4. The steps that already done in implementing a pilot EOR method in a TJX field are:
a) Screening evaluation determine the suitable EOR method that has the best
results is Polymer Injection. (Taber Martin and Aldasany)
b) Review the latest GGR study results are defined and the reservoir zones and
areas where the selected EOR process will be applied are already decided,
there are 4 patterns that will be applied.
c) Preliminary study to determine approximate incremental oil recovery, EOR
material requirements, surface facilities requirements and associated costs
(Capex and Opex) for application in the selected reservoir zone and area.
These parameters can then be used to determine approximate economics for
EOR application.
d) The laboratory test program is conducted.
e) A pilot project area that suitable for field testing of the EOR process and
determine the requirements for the pilot project are selected, Zone C can be
represent all field.
f) Necessary field tests (such as injectivity, water source, water quality,
supplementary chemical requirements, tracer surveys, etc.) will be defined
and conducted in the near time.

36
37
Conclusion

Review the latest GGR study results to define the reservoir zones and areas where the
selected EOR process will be applied.

Preliminary study to determine approximate incremental oil recovery, EOR material


requirements, surface facilities requirements and associated costs (Capex and Opex) for
application in the selected reservoir zone and area. These parameters can then be used to
determine approximate economics for EOR application.

Review available database to determine required additional data items, including EOR
related parameters, and formulate an adequate laboratory test program to obtain the
required data.

Implement and monitor the performance of EOR pilot project to determine the degree of
success and the necessary adjustments to process design.

If this splitting model success, in further development plan we can expand the EOR process
to cover the entire selected field area.

It should be remembered that EOR applications (such as chemical floods) are extremely
complex and require repeated high quality studies, extensive laboratory testing and
consume long period of time as well as require highly qualified professionals and field
personnel. Accordingly, it is recommended that this effort towards EOR application should
start as soon as possible with high quality and adequately accurate database.

If the selected EOR process has several options (such as chemical combinations or
application procedures), additional studies should be conducted to select the optimum
option and procedure.

38
Implementation and monitoring the performance of EOR pilot project to determine the
degree of success and the necessary adjustments to process design.GGR and surface facility
model studied can be used for expanding the EOR process to cover the entire selected field
area.

39
INDEX

Well
No Cum Oil History Contribution Cum for Degree of Matching
Name
(BBL) for field (%) field(%)

1 T-063 4445830.00 12.33% 12.33% Water rate isn’t achieved

2 T-051 2208580.00 6.12% 18.45% Liquid rate isn’t achieved

3 T-064 2199100.00 6.10% 24.55% Matching

4 T-052 1940620.00 5.38% 29.93% Matching

5 T-069 1.77E+06 4.90% 34.83% Matching

6 T-111 1674417.00 4.64% 39.47% Water rate isn’t achieved, over water rate

7 T-066 1531220.00 4.25% 43.71% Water rate isn’t achieved yet

8 T-039 1181210.00 3.27% 46.99% Water rate isn’t achieved yet

9 T-062 1177530.00 3.26% 50.25% Matching

10 T-049 1130570.00 3.13% 53.39% Matching

Not matching completely, 70-75 oil rate not


11 T-017 1119640.00 3.10% 56.49% achieved

12 T-032 1069100.00 2.96% 59.46% Matching

13 T-035 963056.00 2.67% 62.13% Matching

14 T-076 932795.00 2.59% 64.71% Water rate isn’t achieved

15 T-044 899021.00 2.49% 67.21% Matching

16 T-053 878407.00 2.44% 69.64% Matching

17 T-010 774209.00 2.15% 71.79% Matching

18 T-114 682298.00 1.89% 73.68% Liquid rate isn’t achieved

19 T-121 658864.00 1.83% 75.51% Liquid rate isn’t achieved

20 T-089 587706.00 1.63% 77.14% Matching

21 T-060 550788.00 1.53% 78.66% Matching

22 T-057 514156.00 1.43% 80.09% Matching

40
23 T-065 429891.00 1.19% 81.28% Matching

24 T-014 412478.00 1.14% 82.42% Matching

25 T-137 295431.30 0.82% 83.24% Not enough oil production

26 T-116 287277.00 0.80% 84.04% Not enough oil production

27 T-021 265780.00 0.74% 84.78% Matching

28 T-083 263159.00 0.73% 85.51% matching 95%

Over Oil Rate at the initial, less water rate in


29 T-084 242506.00 0.67% 86.18% 1980

30 T-131 228166.00 0.63% 86.81%

31 T-041 207391.00 0.57% 87.39% Water rate isn’t achieved in 1987

32 T-027 202222.00 0.56% 87.95%

33 T-030 194925.00 0.54% 88.49%

34 T-065R 181586.00 0.50% 88.99% Oil rate is over in 1980

35 T-086 180743.00 0.50% 89.49%

36 T-062R 167557.00 0.46% 89.96% Matching

37 T-045 162409.00 0.45% 90.41% Quite matching

38 T-029 157799.00 0.44% 90.84% Matching

39 T-097 152542.00 0.42% 91.27% Liquid rate isn’t achieved yet

40 T-079 146599.00 0.41% 91.67% Matching

41 T-061 144859.00 0.40% 92.07% Matching

42 T-018 142300.00 0.39% 92.47%

43 T-158 133298.00 0.37% 92.84%

44 T-095 132699.00 0.37% 93.21% Liquid rate isn’tachieved

45 T-126 130262.00 0.36% 93.57%

46 T-094 126191.00 0.35% 93.92% Oil Rate isn’t matching

47 T-096 124596.00 0.35% 94.26% Oil Rate isn’t matching

48 T-120 120749.00 0.33% 94.60%

49 T-058 118913.00 0.33% 94.93%

50 T-024 90072.40 0.25% 95.18%

41
51 T-004 89787.60 0.25% 95.43%

52 T-056 87557.30 0.24% 95.67% Matching

53 T-110 79443.00 0.22% 95.89% Not analyzed

54 T-113 78496.30 0.22% 96.11% Not analyzed

55 T-117 75313.40 0.21% 96.32% Not analyzed

56 T-101 73322.80 0.20% 96.52% Not analyzed

57 T-129 73002.10 0.20% 96.72% Not analyzed

58 T-119 65708.00 0.18% 96.90% Not analyzed

59 T-033 65283.90 0.18% 97.08% Not analyzed

60 T-115 61434.60 0.17% 97.25% Not analyzed

61 T-090 61165.60 0.17% 97.42% Not analyzed

62 T-091 58397.60 0.16% 97.59% Not analyzed

63 T-050 57833.50 0.16% 97.75% Not analyzed

64 T-070 51431.60 0.14% 97.89% Not analyzed

65 T-170 45600.90 0.13% 98.02% Not analyzed

66 T-037 44088.70 0.12% 98.14% Not analyzed

67 T-107 41532.30 0.12% 98.25% Not analyzed

68 T-068 34976.70 0.10% 98.35% Not analyzed

69 T-128 34220.30 0.09% 98.44% Not analyzed

70 T-006 30972.50 0.09% 98.53% Not analyzed

71 T-098 29943.80 0.08% 98.61% Not analyzed

72 T-093 29517.00 0.08% 98.70% Not analyzed

73 T-143 28387.80 0.08% 98.77% Not analyzed

74 T-019 27875.00 0.08% 98.85% Matching

75 T-042 24712.20 0.07% 98.92% Not analyzed

76 T-099 24016.10 0.07% 98.99% Not analyzed

77 T-132 23555.30 0.07% 99.05% Not analyzed

78 T-019R 22919.00 0.06% 99.12% Not analyzed

42
79 T-165 22836.00 0.06% 99.18% Not analyzed

80 T-125 21342.60 0.06% 99.24% Not analyzed

81 T-159 21273.20 0.06% 99.30% Not analyzed

82 T-130 19775.60 0.05% 99.35% Not analyzed

83 T-078 19671.20 0.05% 99.41% Not analyzed

84 T-003 18324.30 0.05% 99.46% Not analyzed

85 T-100 15028.40 0.04% 99.50% Not analyzed

86 T-022 14603.10 0.04% 99.54% Not analyzed

87 T-085 12658.80 0.04% 99.57% Not analyzed

88 T-013 12608.60 0.03% 99.61% Not analyzed

89 T-164 12592.10 0.03% 99.64% Not analyzed

90 T-040 12486.50 0.03% 99.68% Not analyzed

91 T-145 11837.10 0.03% 99.71% Not analyzed

92 T-171 11834.60 0.03% 99.74% Not analyzed

93 T-046 11796.10 0.03% 99.78% Not analyzed

94 T-059 8592.94 0.02% 99.80% Not analyzed

95 T-138 8533.07 0.02% 99.82% Not analyzed

96 T-081 7412.06 0.02% 99.84% Not analyzed

97 T-168 7142.02 0.02% 99.86% Not analyzed

98 T-133 6651.71 0.02% 99.88% Not analyzed

99 T-075 5788.46 0.02% 99.90% Not analyzed

100 T-142 5252.93 0.01% 99.91% Not analyzed

101 T-122 4848.09 0.01% 99.93% Not analyzed

102 T-015 4153.03 0.01% 99.94% Not analyzed

103 T-127 2988.82 0.01% 99.95% Not analyzed

104 T-149 2821.51 0.01% 99.95% Not analyzed

105 T-136 2746.35 0.01% 99.96% Not analyzed

106 T-073 2268.80 0.01% 99.97% Not analyzed

43
107 T-124 2188.71 0.01% 99.97% Not analyzed

108 T-092 1402.85 0.00% 99.98% Not analyzed

109 T-144 1376.93 0.00% 99.98% Not analyzed

110 T-008 1360.80 0.00% 99.99% Not analyzed

111 T-102 1349.22 0.00% 99.99% Not analyzed

112 T-166 1240.90 0.00% 99.99% Not analyzed

113 T-108 555.48 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

114 T-082 473.75 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

115 T-081ST 406.97 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

116 T-055 278.70 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

117 T-074 227.59 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

118 T-104 95.25 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

119 T-105 88.16 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

120 T-134 78.85 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

121 T-152 47.62 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

122 T-048 38.20 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

123 T-028 35.99 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

124 T-106 19.77 0.00% 100.00% Not analyzed

TOTAL 36068386.33 BBL

36068.39 MBBL

44