Post on 07-Apr-2018
transcript
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
1/19
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
2/19
Fields for ASP single well tracer tests
Field A Field B Field C
Oil viscosity (mPa.s) 100 9 2
Total acid number (mgKOH/g oil)
0.77 0.08 0.04
Permeability (mD) 1000+ ~ 600
200 - 1000
~ 100
10
200
Make-up water salinity(TDS mg/l))
4795 10860 Fresh water,
< 1000
Temperature (oC) 46 54 83 (downhole)
During SWCT
(cooling): 70Mineralogy (% clays ~adsorption / consumption)
~ 570% Kaolinite
~ 8.580% Kaolinite
~ 1060% Kaolinite
20% Illite20% Chlorite
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
3/19
Design of ASP formulation for SWCT and learnings fromSWCT
Phase behaviour studies to establish optimum salinity Flow experiments in Bentheim/Berea sandstone to determine
Activity of ASP formulation Mobility requirements
Flow experiments in reservoir core material to determine influence ofmineralogy on Surfactant retention Caustic consumption Oil recovery efficiency
Single well chemical tracer tests (SWCT) to determine Handling of chemicals Preparation of ASP and polymer solutions on a larger scale Injectivity ASP formulation effectiveness in reducing the remaining oil saturation afterwater flooding
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
4/19
Surfactant formulation design for Field A
Phase behaviour studies at University of Texas identified suitable surfactantformulation, based on two of Shell Chemicals ENORDETTM surfactants
Solubilisation ratio = 10 ift = 3 x 10-3 mN/m0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
Electrolyte Concentration,ppm Na2CO3
Solubilization
Ratio,c
c/cc
Oil
Water
Minas Crude ( filt)
Temp = 46 C
After 58 days
Sodium Carbonate scan
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
Electrolyte Concentration,ppm Na2CO3
Solubilization
Ratio,c
c/cc
Oil
Water
Crude A
Temp = 46 C
After 58 days
Sodium Carbonate scan
0.3% ENORDET surfactants, 1% co-solvent
oil/water ratio = 1:1
Phase behaviour at 1% surfactantconcentration
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
5/19
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
6/19
Single Well Tracer Theory
Figure 5
EtOH (Product) and EtAc (Cover) Tracers
Hypothetical 1-Layer Test Result
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Produced Volume (barrels)
ConcentrationEtOH(ppm)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
ConcentrationEtAc(ppm)
EtOH
Example Data
EtAc
Example Data
Injection:
Ester (30 m3) + Push water (120 m3).Ester partially partitions in oil.
Shut-in: 2 days. Ester partially hydrolysesto ethanol. Ethanol in water phase.
Back production:Ethanol travels faster than ester.
Result:Ethanol and ester return asseparate peaks.Peak distance is used tocalculate Sor.
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
7/19
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
8/19
Field A SWCT operation
Polymer slicing unit
3 x 32 m3 tanks for preparing chemical EOR fluids
Chemical storage
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
9/19
Field A - Tracer test response after water and ASP flooding
EtOH (Product) and NPA (Cover) Tracers
Best-Fit 3-Layer Model (CFSIM)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 1 00 20 0 3 00 4 00 50 0 6 00 7 00 8 00 9 00 1 00 0 11 00 1 20 0 13 00 1 40 0 150 0 160 0 17 00 1 80 0 19 00
Produced Volume (barrels)
Conc
entrationEtOH(ppm
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
ConcentrationNPA(ppm
EtOH (Product) and NPA (Cover) Tracers
Best-Fit 2-Layer Model (CFSIM)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Produced Volume (barrels)
ConcentrationEtOH(p
pm
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
ConcentrationNPA(p
pm
Best-Fit 2-Layer Model
Sor = 0.01
Best-Fit 3-Layer
Model
Sor = 0.25
IPA tracer in the ASP fluidcontained ethanol and thisaffected the tracer profile
Sor after water flooding
Sor after ASP flooding
CTI performed tracer test and historymatching of the tracer response
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
10/19
Fields for ASP single well tracer tests
Field A Field B Field C
Oil viscosity (mPa.s) 100 9 2
Total acid number (mgKOH/g oil)
0.77 0.08 0.04
Permeability (mD) 1000+ ~ 600
200 - 1000
~ 100
10 200
Make-up water salinity(TDS mg/l))
4795 10860 Fresh water,
< 1000
Temperature (oC) 46 54 83 (downhole)
During SWCT(cooling): 70
Mineralogy (% clays ~adsorption /consumption)
~ 5
70%Kaolinite
~ 8.5
80% Kaolinite
~ 10
60% Kaolinite
20% Illite
20% Chlorite
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
11/19
Surfactant formulation design for Field BPhase behaviour with surfactant formulation: 0.3% ENORDET surfactants (twocomponents), 1% co-solvent
Flow experiments in Bentheim sandstoneASP solution/polymer drive 20 mPa.s 60% recovery
ASP solution/polymer drive 30 mPa.s 92% recovery
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Injected fluid volume (PV)
Oilrecovery(fractionSor
),C/Co
&
u/uo
Viscosity produced polymer/viscosity injected polymer
Oil production (fraction Sor)
C/Co surfactant
C/Co Na2CO3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Injected fluid volume (PV)
Oilrecovery(fractionSor
),C/Co
&u/uo
Viscosity produced polymer/viscosity injected polymer
Oil production (fraction Sor)
C/C0 surfactant
C/C0 Na2CO3
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
12/19
Surfactant formulation design for Field B
Injection side
Production side
Injection side Production side
Injection side
Production side
Injection side Production side
Improved mobility
20 mPa.s at 6 s-1 30 mPa.s at 6 s-1
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
13/19
Field B - Tracer test response after water and ASP flooding
EtOH (Product) and NPA (Cover) Tracers
Best-Fit 3-Layer Model (CFSIM)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800
Produced Volume (barrels)
C
oncentrationEtOH(ppm
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
C
oncentrationNPA(ppm
Best-Fit 3-Layer
Model
Sor = 0.20
EtOH (Product) and NPA (Cover) Tracers
Best-Fit 3-Layer Model (CFSIM)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800
Produced Volume (barrels)
ConcentrationEtOH
(ppm
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
ConcentrationNPA
(ppm
Best-Fit 3-Layer
Model
Sor = 0.04
Injection schedule ASP flood 320 m3 ASP solutionoverdisplaced with 290 m3 polymerdrive and 640 m3 water 320 m3 tracer injection of whichthe first 64 m3 contained the tracer(ethyl formate) 36 m interval
Sor after water flooding
Sor after ASP flooding
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
14/19
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
15/19
Surfactant formulation design for Field CPhase behaviour tests
% KCl: 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5%
Phase behaviour results with Field C crude after 3 days at 70C.WOR = 70/30, KCl salt was added to increase salinity.
ASP formulation0.7% ENORDETsurfactants (two
components)
1.0% SBA
1.0% Na2CO3
1500 ppm Flopaam 3230S
Optimum
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
16/19
Surfactant formulation design for Field CCore flow tests (Berea)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Pore Volumes Produced
%
OilorSurfactant
start ofemulsion
Surfactant
Oil cut
Cumulative oil
ASP core flow tests with Field C crude in Berea core. 1 PV ASPinjected. Temperature = 70oCObservations
95% of remaining oilrecovered
Relative early oilbreakthrough
Most surfactant in waterphase (under-optimum)
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
17/19
Field C Tracer test response after water and ASP flooding
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Produced Volume (m3)
ConcentrationEtOH(ppm)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
ConcentrationNPA
(ppm)
Layer 2 accepted 18% of the
tracer-carrying fluid.
Best-Fit 3-Layer
Model: Sor = 0.23
Layer 3 accepted 60% of
the tracer-carrying fluid.
NPA tracerEtOH
Layer 1 accepted
22% of the tracer-
carrying fluid.
Total tracer volume injected: 200 m3. Total ASP volume: 70 m3(equivalent to 0.35 PV in core flow test)Complex tracer responsedue to crossflow duringshut-in.Tracer response modeledwith 3 layers (solid lines)
Before ASP injection: remaining oil = 23 %
After ASP injection: remaining oil = 2%
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
18/19
Conclusions/further plans
Single well tracer tests showed that the ASP formulations were successful
in reducing the oil saturation to very low values Moving to pattern pilot tests in Field A and C
Objectives:Evaluation effectiveness ASP formulation(s), e.g. surfactant
retention/propagation and caustic consumptionFast oil recovery response
Evaluation of scaling and emulsion problems
When technical and economical issues are satisfactory resolved thenfurther upscaling
8/6/2019 r Faber Sept 2010 ASP Flooding Lab and Swct Results
19/19