ADIPEC 2013 Technical Conference Manuscript

Name: Majid Mohammadpour Faskhoodi

Company: Schlumberger
Job title: Senior Reservoir Consultant
Address: Calgary, AB, Canada T2P0G7
Phone number:
Email:
Category: EOR: Challenges and Lessons Learnt from Field Studies

Abstract ID: 687

Title: Feasibility Study of Gas Re-injection in Giant Carbonate Reservoir in the Middle East- EOR Application in A Green
Field (Case Study)

Author(s): Majid M. Faskhoodi, Ramin Bahraie, Xing Zhang, Janelle Simon and Qinglai Ni, Schlumberger; Tian Ping, Ou
Jin, Wong Lee Jean, Wen Daoming, Faisal Abdulla Mohamad; PetroChina

This manuscript was prepared for presentation at the ADIPEC 2013 Technical Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10-13 November 2013.
This manuscript was selected for presentation by the ADIPEC 2013 Technical Committee Review and Voting Panel upon online submission of an
abstract by the named author(s).

Abstract

1
Introduction







Selecting a suitable formation reservoir for gas re-injection

2
Oil recovery mechanism and displacement efficiency under gas re-injection












3
 ’

Table 1 - Calculated MMPs Vs Observed MMPs

4
Defining and optimizing the composition of re-injected gas

OPTMIX and OPTDRY Gas

5
RAW and DRY Gas:

Optimization of gas injection parameters by using 2D and 3D sector models












6
 
























Full field production performance forecast during gas re-injection

7
 Table 2 - Gas Availability in the Field

Table 3 - Amount of available gas for 4 types of gases

Sensitivity analysis on full field model









8
 

Cap Rock Integrity Study using 3D Coupled Reservoir Geo-mechanical Modeling

9
–

10
11
 

The authors wished to thank PetroChina management for their support and permission to publish and present this paper

ROI: Reservoir Opportunity Index

Phi: Porosity
NTG: Net to gross
Perm: Permeability
Sw: water saturation
GOR: gas oil ratio
MF: mole fraction

JJ Taber, SPE, FD Martin, SPE and R.S. Seright, SPE, New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center; EOR Screening
Criteria Revisited- part 1; SPE 35385
W van Vark,S.K. Masalmeh, and J Van Drop, Shell Abu Dhabi, M. Abu Al Nasr and S. Al-Khanbashi, ADNOC; Simulation
Study of Miscible Gas Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery in Low Permeable Carbonate Reservoir in Abu Dhabi; SPE
88717
JJ Taber, SPE, FD Martin, SPE and R.S. Seright, SPE, New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center; EOR Screening
Criteria Revisited- part 2; SPE 39234
Saad F Alkafeef, SPE, and Alforgi M. Zaid, SPE, College of Technological Studies ; Review of and Outlook for Enhanced Oil
Recovery Techniques in Kuwait Oil Reservoirs; IPTC 11234

12
Ahmad Aladasani, SPE, Baojun Bai, SPE, Kuwait Oil Company & Missouri University of Science and Technology; Recent
Development and Updated Screening Criteria for Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques; SPE 130726
M Kabir SPE, P McKenzie, C Connell, SPE and T O’Sullivan, SPE, Santos Ltd; Gas Injection Technique to Develop Rim Oil,
Merreenie Field, Australia; SPE 50050
George J Stosur, SPE, Petroleum Consultant, J. Roger Hite, SPE, Business Fundamentals Group, Norman F. Carnahan, SPE,
Carnahan Corporation, Karl Millet, SPE, Consultant; The Alphabet Soup of IOR, EOR and AOR: Effective Communication
Requires a Definition of Tem; SPE 84908
J H Hyatt,l SPE and D.A. Hutchison, ExxonMobile Production Co; Enhanced Oil Recovery in East Texas; SPE 93631
X. Zhang and N. Koutsabeloulis, David Press and KwangHo Lee (2011). Dual-Permeability Model for Coupled Reservoir
Geomechanical Modeling: Application for Field Production Data, SPE 148078.
Dipankar Dutta, C.V.G. Nair, Xing Zhang, Khaqan Khan, Assef Mohamad-Hussein, Muhammad Yaser, David Press, Nasser
Faisal Al-Khalifa, Eman Hadad Eaid Faldi, and Nick Koutsabeloulis (2011). A 3D Coupled Reservoir Geomechanics Study
for Pressure, Water Production, and Oil Production Simulation: Application in Umm-Gudair Field, West Kuwait, SPE
147943.
Xing Zhang, Nick Koutsabeloulis, Tron Kristiansen, Kes Heffer, Ian Main, John Greenhough and Assef Mohamad Hussein
(2011). Modelling of Depletion-Induced Microseismic Events by Coupled Reservoir Simulation: Application to Valhall
Field, SPE 143378.
N. Koutsabeloulis and X. Zhang (2009). 3D Reservoir Geomechanical Modelling in Oil/Gas Field Production, SPE 126095.
X. Zhang, N. Koutsabeloulis and K. Heffer (2007). Hydro-mechanical modelling of critically stressed, faulted reservoirs,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 91: 31-50.

Figure 1 - ROI Map and sector locations

13
 Figure 2 - Sector modeling

Figure 3 - EOS validating workflow

14
Figure 4 - Mole Fraction of Injected Gas vs. Saturation Pressure

Figure 5 - Pressure vs. Oil Recovery (MMP Calculation)

Sector 1

Extended Boundary

Area
of
Interest
Extended Boundary

Figure 6 - Sector model with extended boundary

15
 2D model

3D sector
model

Full Scale model

Figure 7 - Full field development planning workflow

Figure 8 - Infill producers/ injectors location

Figure 9 - Infill Producer/Injector schematic

16
Figure 10 - Effect of gas injection on production of infill producer

─── Raw
─── Dry
─── OPTMIX
─── OPTDRY

Figure 11- Field cumulative oil production (different gas types)

17
 ─── GIR=85MMSCFD
─── GIR=150MMSCFD
─── GIR=200MMSCFD
─── GIR=250MMSCFD

Figure 12 - Field cumulative oil production (different volume of injection)

─── GI Start @ 2015

─── GI Start @ 2017
─── GI Start @ 2020

Figure 13 - Field cumulative oil production (different starting time of gas injection)

18
Figure 14 - ND vs GI of 85 MMSCFD vs WAG injection

Figure 15 - ND vs GI of 150 MMSCFD vs WAG injection

19
 Young's modulus
Cohesion Correlation Friction angle
40 50000 40
y = 44.338e-8.243x y = 57224e-7.521x
30 40000
30
30000
20

Degree
20
GPa

kPa
20000
10
10000 10
y = 37.701e-1.305x
0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Porosity Porosity
Porosity

Figure 16 - Illustration of cases studies 1 and 2, in terms of mechanical property uncertainty.

Figure 17 - Reservoir pressure evolution in gas injection Scenario two

20
Figure 18 - Cap rock up-movement (m) and down-movement (m) in Gas Injection Scenario Two. Negative - downwards movement; positive -
upwards movement.

Figure 19 -Predicted maximum uplifts at cap rock during Gas Injection Scenario One

21
 Figure 20 - Predicted maximum uplifts at cap rock during Gas Injection Scenario One

Figure 21 - Predicted extensional stresses within cap rock in Gas Injection Scenario Two with the mechanical properties in Case 3

22