SPE 100082 Optimization of Chemical Flooding in a Mixed-Wet Dolomite Reservoir Glen A. Anderson, Mojdeh Delshad, Chrissi Brown King, Hourshad Mohammadi, and Gary A. Pope Reservoir Engineering Research Program Center for Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering The University of Texas at Austin 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery Tulsa, Oklahoma April 22-26, 2006
Acknowledgements Department of Energy - Grant: DE-FC26-04NT15529 - Grant: DE-FC26-03NT15406 Oxy Permian
Presentation Outline Introduction Overview of reservoir Simulation model development Base case surfactant/polymer (S/P) design Design optimization using sensitivity analysis Design uncertainty Conclusions
Introduction Past chemical floods in sandstones - Water-wet Carbonate reservoirs are complex - Mixed-wet and oil-wet - Few chemical floods in carbonates Objective of this study - Optimize an S/P design for a mixed-wet carbonate - Sensitivity and economic analyses
Reservoir Overview West Texas Field (Permian Basin) - Mixed-wet dolomite within Grayburg - Highly heterogeneous with layering - Primary recovery 10% OOIP - Secondary recovery 15% OOIP - Depth of 4,700 ft - Low reservoir pressure (~750-1000 psi) - High residual oil saturation (~40%) - Currently waterflooding 40-acre 5-spot patterns Producing at 1-2% oil cut
Simulation Model Development Using field and laboratory data - ¼ 5-spot symmetry element - 1.8 PV waterflood was simulated to obtain initial conditions Injector Injector Producer Producer Permeability (md) Post-Waterflood Oil Saturation
Base Case S/P Design Base Case Design Variables Base Case Design Assumptions Injection well constraints Production well constraint Surfactant slug Polymer drive Water postflush Surfactant adsorption Rate constraint = 2,000 bbl/day Pressure control = 2,500 psi Pressure constraint = 300 psi 0.25 PV 1 vol% surfactant mixture 1,000 ppm polymer 0.365 meq/ml (21,000 ppm TDS) 1 PV 1,000 ppm polymer 0.2 meq/ml (11,700 ppm TDS) 0.5 PV 0.04 meq/ml (2,300 ppm TDS) 0.3 mg surfactant/g rock Polymer adsorption Capillary desaturation parameters 10 μg polymer/g rock Water = 1,865 Oil = 59,074 Vertical permeability k v /k h = 0.05 Permeability 156 md CPGE For surfactant information, refer to SPE 100089
Base Case S/P Simulation Results 27.8% OOIP (42% ROIP) 21 years simulated $14.50 per barrel of oil 35 to 720 bopd Injection Rate (Bbl/day) or Injection Bottomhole Pressure (psi) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 CPGE Surf Slug P wf Polymer Drive Rate Water Postflush 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 Pore Volumes Injected Production Rates (Bbl/day) 2000 1600 1200 800 400 0 Water Oil Surfactant 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 Pore Volumes Injected 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000 Surfactant Concentration
Base Case S/P Simulation Results Oil Saturation at 0.35 PV Injected Surfactant Concentration (vol frac) at 0.35 PV Injected Oil Saturation at 1.75 PV Injected (Final) Surfactant Concentration (vol frac) at 1.75 PV Injected (Final)
Sensitivity Analysis Purpose of sensitivity analysis: design optimization using key variables Purpose of uncertainty analysis: effect of most uncertain variables Key design variables - Surfactant concentration - Surfactant slug size - Polymer concentration - Polymer drive design - Salinity gradient Uncertain variables - Surfactant adsorption - Polymer adsorption - k v /k h - Permeability
Economic Analysis Discounted cash flow analysis - Importance of chemical mass, oil breakthrough time, and project life - Optimum design has the highest net present value CPGE Capital and Operating Costs Oil and Chemical Prices Taxation Rates General Rates Equipment Cost $100,000 Operating Cost $5,000 per month Chemical Injection Cost $0.10 per barrel Fluid Treatment Cost $0.10 per barrel Oil Price $30 - $50 per barrel Blended Surfactant Price $1.75 - $2.75 per pound Polymer Price $1.00 per pound Royalty 0% Severance & Ad valorem 5% Income Tax 36.64% Tax Credit 15% Inflation Rate 3% Real Discount Rate 10%
Surfactant Concentration Sensitivity Surfactant concentration varied from 0.5 to 1.5 vol% Average economic limit = 16 years Cumulative Chemical Flooding Oil Recovery (%OOIP) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Common Variables Surf Slug = 0.25 PV Poly Conc = 1000 ppm Poly Drive = 1 PV 1.5 vol% 1.0 vol% 0.5 vol% 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 Pore Volumes Injected Net Present Value ($MM) $14 $12 $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 Oil: $50 Surf: $2.75 Oil: $30 Surf: $1.75 Oil: $30 Surf: $2.75 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Surfactant Concentration (vol%)
Surfactant Slug Size Sensitivity Surfactant slug size varied from 0.15 to 0.5 PV Average economic limit = 16 years Cumulative Chemical Flooding Oil Recovery (%OOIP) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Common Variables Surf Conc = 1 vol% Poly Conc = 1000 ppm Poly Drive = 1 PV 0.5 PV 0.35 PV 0.25 PV 0.15 PV 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 Pore Volumes Injected Net Present Value ($MM) $14 $12 $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 -$2 -$4 Oil: $50 Surf: $2.75 Oil: $30 Surf: $2.75 Oil: $30 Surf: $1.75 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Surfactant Slug Size (%PV)
Polymer Concentration Sensitivity Polymer concentration varied from 500 to 2500 ppm Average economic limit = 15 years Cumulative Chemical Flooding Oil Recovery (%OOIP) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5.6 MMlb 4.2 MMlb 2.8 MMlb 1.4 MMlb Common Variables Surf Conc = 1 vol% Surf Slug = 0.25 PV Poly Drive = 1 PV 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 Pore Volumes Injected Net Present Value ($MM) $16 $14 $12 $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 Oil: $50 Surf: $2.75 Oil: $30 Surf: $1.75 Oil: $30 Surf: $2.75 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Polymer Concentration (ppm)
Surfactant Adsorption Sensitivity Surfactant adsorption varied from 0.1 to 0.6 mg surfactant/g rock Most recent laboratory data suggest 0.1 mg/g Cumulative Chemical Flooding Oil Recovery (%OOIP) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.1 mg/g 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 Pore Volumes Injected 0.3 mg/g 0.43 mg/g 0.6 mg/g Common Variables Surf Conc = 1 vol% Surf Slug = 0.25 PV Poly Drive = 1 PV Poly Conc = 1000 ppm Net Present Value ($MM) $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 -$5 Oil: $30 Surf: $1.75 Oil: $50 Surf: $2.75 Oil: $30 Surf: $2.75 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Surfactant Adsorption (mg/g)
Design Optimization Results Optimum design higher polymer concentration CPGE Net Present Value ($MM) $18 $16 $14 $12 $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 -$2 -$4 Oil = $30, Surf = $2.75 Oil = $50, Surf = $2.75 Oil = $30, Surf = $1.75 Optimum Design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Simulation Number
Design Uncertainty Results Only negative results were from high adsorption (0.6 mg/g) and lower permeability at low oil price and high surfactant cost CPGE Net Present Value ($MM) $18 $16 $14 $12 $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 -$2 -$4 Oil = $30, Surf = $2.75 Oil = $50, Surf = $2.75 Oil = $30, Surf = $1.75 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Simulation Number
Lessons Learned Heterogeneity - Channeling causing early fluid breakthrough - Increase polymer mass for mobility control - Long oil production tail Wettability - Based on simple fractional flow theory Later oil bank breakthrough Earlier surfactant breakthrough Longer project life - Well spacing and constraints
Conclusions A reservoir model for a Permian basin dolomite reservoir was developed for an S/P optimization study - Mixed-wet and heterogeneous Base case S/P design was developed using field and laboratory data - Unoptimized design had promising recovery and economics Sensitivity analysis performed to optimize the S/P design - Injecting higher polymer mass will increase recovery and profitability
Conclusions At $50 oil and low surfactant adsorption, an S/P flood in one 5-spot pattern could have an NPV of $13 to $17 million with an IRR of ~40% Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses show that adverse conditions are still profitable - Robust design S/P flooding this heterogeneous mixed-wet reservoir is economically feasible - Importance of good surfactant performance and careful laboratory evaluation