RESERVOIR SIMULATION
PROJECT B
Effects of Oil Viscosity and heterogeneity on Water Flooding
Professor Pavel Bedrikovetsky
Aakriti Bhandari Konstantin Bobrov Andre Michels Wan Mohd Syafiq Irfan Wan Mohd Shuhaimi
Project B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction...3 Aim...4 Eclipse Keywords.5 Homogenous (1 Layer) Reservoir Results..6-9
Heterogeneous (5 Layers) Reservoir Results.10-14
Comparison Between Homogenous and Heterogeneous Results..15
Sensitivity Analysis..16-19
Conclusions .20
Project B
INTRODUCTION
Why water flood? It involves drilling injection wells and introduction water through them
It improves oil production Primary Recovery only recovers 5-35% OIIP Water flooding can be used to recover 5-50% of the remaining oil Flooding techniques can be used to improve recovery for highly heterogeneous reservoir.
Project B 3
INTRODUCTION
Buckley-Leverett one dimensional displacement
1
(_)/(_ )
_
0.5
0 0.00
= = Speed/position of waterfront () =
Sw
Swf
0.80
Capillary pressure term in the fractional flow fixes the problem = ( )
< < moves at constant speed stabilized zone > - unstablized zone Abrupt changes in saturation in shock front gradually change in saturation behind water front
AIM
Used Eclipse to investigate the effect of oil viscosity and heterogeneity on well
performance. Plotted oil saturation maps for various viscosities Calculated oil and water production rate at various time and PVI for low and high viscosity oil. Used heterogeneous reservoir with different permeability to examine its effect on Oil recovery
Keywords
Project B
Keywords CWIT DIMENS DZ FWPT PERM RESV TSTEP uo
Function Connection water injected total Number of grid blocks in each direction Length of z direction Field water production total Permeability Specifies a target fluid rate Time step Oil viscosity
Homogeneous 5-spot pattern
Effect of oil Viscosity on waterflooding for a given rate
Rf Vs Viscosity for day 180
0.174 0.173 0.172 0.161 0.148
0.3 cp
0.174
1 cp
0.172
0.075
0.021
0.3
0.7
10
50
200
10 cp
0.148
200 cp
0.021
Project B
Saturation Maps Summary
The profiles below show the changing saturation of oil
Rf Vs PVI for 1 cp
0.69 0.75 0.75 0.77
0.28 0.16
0.1PVI
0.16
BT
0.69
4PVI
0.77
0.1
0.2
0.5434 1 PVI
1.5
Rf Vs PVI for 50 cp
0.52
0.65
0.47
0.17 0.06
0.20
0.1PVI
0.06
BT
0.20
4PVI
0.65
0.1
0.2
0.5434 PVI
1.5
Project B
Recovery Factor
RF at Break through
0.8 0.7 0.6
Recovery factor
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
1 Cp 50 Cp
1000
Break through time
BT at 1 and 50 cP at 1000 bbl/d BT at 1 and 50 cP at 6000 bbl/d
Observation: Higher recovery factor with lower viscosity Faster depletion with higher rate(1cP) Higher recovery factor with lower rate(50cP) Explanation: Piston-like displacement for 1cP Bypassing of oil by water (50cP) Mobility ratio between oil and injected water
Project B
Break through time
800 600 400 200 0
1 Cp
50 Cp
Oil production rate and water cut
14000
OPR vs PVI Observations: Increase in Viscosity, less Oil production Different production profile for low and high Viscosity 1 cp
12000
10000 Oil Production rate
8000
6000
4000
50 cp
2000
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
PVI
0.8
1.2
Explanations : Time delay for pressure support Slower response in the reservoir Primary drive Difference in oil and water Viscosity
Project B
RESERVOIR SIMULATION
Observations: Reaches Maximum water cut quickly with high flow rate BT happens sooner for high Viscosity Steeper water cut for low viscosity
Project B
Explanations : Difference in oil and water Viscosity Piston like and Finger like flow for different viscosities
11
5 Layer cake 5-spot pattern
Investigating the effect of heterogeneity on water flooding
Setting heterogeneity:
For permeability ratio (Kmax/Kmin = 1, 10, 100) Height = 20 m and kavg = 500 md
Kmax/Kmin = 1 500 500 500 500 500 95.3 442 484 526 953 10 9.88 459 500 543 988 100
All Permeability values are in md
Project B 12
Water Flooding (So)
Effect of oil Viscosity on water flooding for a given rate 0.3 cp 19.9% 1 cp 19.9% Rf Vs Viscosity
0.199 0.199 0.199 0.196 0.192 0.159 RF
10cp
19.2%
200 cp
7.9%
0.079
0.3
0.7
5 Viscosity
10
50
200
Project B
13
5 Layer Saturation Map
The profiles below show the changing saturation of oil
0.1 PVI 16% BT 53.8% 4 PVI 69%
Rf Vs PVI
0.75
1 cp
RF
0.5
50 cp
0.25
0.1 PVI
3.8%
BT
7.7%
4 PVI
48%
0 0 1 PVI 2 3 4
Project B
14
5-LAYER GRAPHS SUMMARY
RF Vs PVI for five layers
0.8
0.7 0.6 Recovery Factor 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
RF at Bt Vs Rate for heteregeneous reservoir
0.75
0.7
R: 1 R: 10 R: 100
Rf at Break through
0.65
R: 1
0.6
R:10
0.55
R:100
0.5 0 0 1 2 3 PVI 4 5 6 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Flow Rate
Homogeneous reservoir has better performance Most heterogeneous reservoir the flow becomes channel which decreases the influence of water flooding
Project B 15
5-LAYER GRAPHS SUMMARY
8000 7000 6000 5000
Production rate Vs PVI
1.2
Water Cut Vs PVI
R:1
0.8
R:10
Fw
Production Rate
R: 100
4000 3000 2000 1000
0.6
R: 100
R:1
0.4
R: 10
0.2
0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.5
1.5
PVI
PVI
Pressure support drops faster in homogeneous reservoir than in heterogeneous
WC is faster for ratio 1 due to heterogeneity
Project B
16
Recovery Factor Per Layer
Ratio 1
1 0.4 RF 2 RF 3 0.2 4 5 0 0 1 2 PVI 3 4 Field 0 0 2 PVI 4 6 0.4 3 4 0.2 5 Field 0.6
0.6
Ratio 100
1 2
Observation: Lowest permeable layer has the highest rate to increase for 0-1 PVI
Ratio 10
0.6 1 2 0.4 RF 3 4 5 0 0 2 4 PVI 6 8 Field
Explanation: Pressure difference
0.2
Project B
17
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Rf Vs PVI
0.8
R: 1
0.7
R: 10 R: 100
0.6
Recovery Factor
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
PVI
CONCLUSIONS
Eclipse is a sophisticated software for the simulation of waterflooding. The recovery factor, RF decreases as the viscosity increases both for 1 layer and 5 layers case.
Water breakthrough is faster with the high viscosity oil.
Recovery Factor at Breakthrough decreases as heterogeneity increases Water breakthrough occurs first at the layer with the highest permeability.
Project B 19
