potential production enhancement methods in the bakken...
Post on 03-Aug-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Potential Production Enhancement Methods in the Bakken: Gas Utilization and Water Injection
Presented by Mars Luo Saskatchewan Research Council March 12, 2015
Tight Oil Optimization Conference
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Outline • SRC at a glance • Tight oil reservoir characteristics • Challenges for tight oil development • Prospective EOR solutions • Conclusions
2
Copyright @ SRC 2015
SRC Overview • Saskatchewan’s leading provider of
applied RD&D and technology commercialization
• Over 350 employees • $68 million in annual revenue • 68 years of RD&D experience • 2,000 clients around the world • Providing leading edge oil and gas
technologies to clients • Team of expert engineers, scientists, and
technologists
3
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Research & Innovation • Advancing enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) in the WCSB • State of the art labs with custom-
designed and custom-built models – SAGD, SVX techniques
• Expertise in: – Thermal EOR – Post-cold-production EOR – Chemical waterflooding – Miscible/immiscible gas (CO2) injection – Microbial EOR – In-situ combustion – Original hybrid EOR systems such as
solvent/thermal and chemical/CO2
4
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Tight Oil Reservoir Characteristics
Source: Canadian Society of Unconventional Resources Source: JuneWarren-Nickle’s Energy Group
5
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Tight Oil Plays in Western Canada
6
Source: ERCB
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Southeast Saskatchewan Bakken Oil Production and Producing Well Count
7
Source: Saskatchewan Ministry of Economy
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,800
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,000
Jan-
04Ap
r-04
Jul-0
4O
ct-0
4Ja
n-05
Apr-
05Ju
l-05
Oct
-05
Jan-
06Ap
r-06
Jul-0
6O
ct-0
6Ja
n-07
Apr-
07Ju
l-07
Oct
-07
Jan-
08Ap
r-08
Jul-0
8O
ct-0
8Ja
n-09
Apr-
09Ju
l-09
Oct
-09
Jan-
10Ap
r-10
Jul-1
0O
ct-1
0Ja
n-11
Apr-
11Ju
l-11
Oct
-11
Jan-
12Ap
r-12
Jul-1
2O
ct-1
2Ja
n-13
Apr-
13Ju
l-13
Oct
-13
Jan-
14Ap
r-14
Jul-1
4O
ct-1
4
Wel
l Cou
nt
Oil
Prod
uctio
n (b
arre
ls p
er d
ay)
Oil Production (barrels per day)
Producing Well Count
Copyright @ SRC 2015
8
Source: Saskatchewan Ministry of Economy
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Jan-
04Ap
r-04
Jul-0
4O
ct-0
4Ja
n-05
Apr-
05Ju
l-05
Oct
-05
Jan-
06Ap
r-06
Jul-0
6O
ct-0
6Ja
n-07
Apr-
07Ju
l-07
Oct
-07
Jan-
08Ap
r-08
Jul-0
8O
ct-0
8Ja
n-09
Apr-
09Ju
l-09
Oct
-09
Jan-
10Ap
r-10
Jul-1
0O
ct-1
0Ja
n-11
Apr-
11Ju
l-11
Oct
-11
Jan-
12Ap
r-12
Jul-1
2O
ct-1
2Ja
n-13
Apr-
13Ju
l-13
Oct
-13
Jan-
14Ap
r-14
Jul-1
4O
ct-1
4
Wel
l Cou
nt
Oil
Prod
uctio
n (b
arre
ls p
er d
ay)
Oil Production (barrels per day)
Producing Well Count
Southeast Saskatchewan Bakken-Torquay Oil Production and Producing Well Count
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Challenges in Developing Bakken • Low permeability • Low porosity • Harsh reservoir conditions • Complex geology • Formation damage
“I think the bigger bang for our buck right now is in waterflooding to see if this pool can be waterflooded or CO2 flooded and those kinds of things.”
— Scott Saxberg, President and CEO, Crescent Point
Typical Bakken well production profile
9
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Bakken EOR Strategy Sharp depletion during
primary recovery What’s next?
CO2
Gas Flooding
flue gas produced gas
natural gas
formation brine
modified brine
surfactant
Water Flooding Thermal?
10
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Live Oil–Injection Gas Phase Behaviour
11
Saturation Pressure (MPa)10 15 20 25
Visc
osity
(mPa
⋅s)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Live oil-flue gasLive oil-CO2Live oil-natural gasLive oil-N2Live oil-enriched natural gas
Saturation Pressure (MPa)10 15 20 25
Den
sity
(kg/
m3 )
640
660
680
700
720
740
Live oil-flue gasLive oil-CO2Live oil-natural gasLive oil-N2Live oil-enriched natural gas
Saturation Pressure (MPa)10 15 20 25
Gas
/Oil
Rat
io (s
m3 /s
m3 )
100
200
300
400
500
Live oil-flue gasLive oil-CO2
Live oil-natural gasLive oil-N2
Live oil-enriched natural gas
Saturation Pressure (MPa)10 15 20 25
Form
atio
n Vo
lum
e Fa
ctor
(m3 /s
m3 )
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Live oil-flue gasLive oil-CO2
Live oil-natural gasLive oil-N2
Live oil-enriched natural gas
CO2 causes much higher viscosity reduction and oil swelling than other gases!
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Minimum Miscibility Pressure ─ Rising Bubble Test
CO2 MMP = 13.6 MPa Flue Gas MMP > 30 MPa
12
Copyright @ SRC 2015
13
PV Injected
0 2 4 6 8 10
Rec
over
y Fa
ctor
(%O
OIP
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pre
ssur
e D
iffer
ence
(kP
a)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
IWFCO2 floodingEWFdP
Primary: 5.9% of OOIP
IWF: 37.8%
CO2: 41.9% EWF: 0.8%
Primary Recovery: 5.9% of OOIP
PV Injected
0 5 10 15 20 25
Rec
over
y Fa
ctor
(%O
OIP
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pre
ssur
e D
iffer
ence
(kP
a)
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
IWFFlue gas floodingEWFdP
Primary Recovery: 24.9% of OOIP
Primary: 24.9% of OOIP
IWF: 42.4%
Flue gas: 12.4%
EWF: 3.2%
PV Injected
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Rec
over
y Fa
ctor
(%O
OIP
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pre
ssur
e D
iffer
ence
(kP
a)
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
IWFNatural gas floodingEWFdP
Primary: 19.7% of OOIP
Primary: 5.9% of OOIP
Natural Gas Flooding
IWF: 31.6%
PV Injected
0 5 10 15 20
Rec
over
y Fa
ctor
(%O
OIP
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pre
ssur
e D
iffer
ence
(kP
a)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
IWFN2 floodingEWFdP
Flue Gas Flooding CO2 Flooding
Nitrogen Flooding
Coreflood Test Pressure depletion IWF gas flood EWF
Primary: 30.8% of OOIP
IWF: 30.0% N2: 3.0%
EWF: 5.6%
EWF: 0.0%
Natural gas: 12.4%
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Geochemistry of CO2 Flooding
Saturation of Bakken core plugs with carbonated brine @ 20 MPa and 88°C for two weeks.
Before After
14
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Geochemistry of CO2 Flooding
Saturation of Bakken core plugs with carbonated brine @ 20 MPa and 88°C for four months.
Before After
15
Permeability increase from carbonate dissolution can be offset by decrease due to clay/grain migration.
Copyright @ SRC 2015
16
Produced calcium carbonates
X. Wang et al. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2011, 50 (4)
CO2 reaction with brine
Coating Clay
S.G. Sayegh et al. SPE Formation Evaluation, 1990, 12
Before CO2 flood
After CO2 flood
CO2 reaction with rock Crystal Calcite
Geochemistry of CO2 Flooding
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Why Chemical EOR? Lower facility and operation cost than gas flooding
Increase capillary number: Target residual oil trapped in pores
Reduce interfacial tension between residual oil and brine by possibly up to three orders of magnitude
Alter wettability to improve injectivity
2 cm3/hr brine injection into a core stack that is 31.35 (L)×3.84 (D) cm. Pressure drop reaches 3 MPa!
17
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Oil─Brine─Surfactant─Rock Interactions
Oil
Formation Brine Rock
Surfactant
IFT reduction alone is not enough!
18
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Surfactant Screening
Phase Behaviour
Surfactant Adsorption
Time (min)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Con
tact
Ang
le (o )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Dead oil on slideDead oil on surfactant soaked slideLive oil on slideLive oil on surfactant soaked slide
Wettability Alteration
19
Source: Oil Chem Technologies
Copyright @ SRC 2015
High P&T Contact Angle and IFT Meter
Interfacial Phenomenon θ
θ
θ = 148°θ = 156°
Advanced Spinning Drop Tensiometer
Contact angle measurement for a light oil on rock slide
20
Bakken oil in 0.05 wt% SuperSurfTM 406 brine solution, spinning drop IFT meter rotating at 5000 RPM.
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Coreflood Test ─ Recovery or Injectivity?
21
• Lower interfacial tension between water and oil, recover more oil than waterflood.
• Change the rock wettability to more water-wet, thus change the capillary pressure and relative permeability.
Fluid Injected (PV)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Pre
ssu
re D
rop
(kP
a)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Cu
mu
lativ
e o
il R
eco
very
(%
OO
IP)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Pressure drop IWF1st surfactant 1st EWF2nd surfactant2nd EWF
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Recovery Mechanisms for Surfactant Flooding
22
• Imbibition vs Drainage
• Conventional vs Tight
• Waterflood vs Surfactant
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Field-Scale EOR Simulation Model Model Properties
Avg. Permeability 1 mD Avg. Porosity 0.13 Oil Gravity 40 oAPI Estimated OOIP 6.2 MMbbl Injector Num. 4 HZ Producer Num. 4 HZ
23
Copyright @ SRC 2015
24
2015-01-01 2020-01-01 2025-01-01 2030-01-010
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160WaterfloodSurfactant floodImmiscible gas floodMiscible gas flood
2011-01-01 2033-01-01
Time (Date)
Oil R
ate S
C (m
3 /D)
IOR Start Point
IMGF≈22 bbl/D
SF≈125 bbl/D
MGF≈250 bbl/D
WF≈80 bbl/D
Oil Recovery Performance Prediction 20 Year Predication of Water or Gas Injection
Scenario Oil RF (%)
Water Flooding 14 Surfactant Flooding 19
Gas Immiscible Flooding 10 Gas Miscible Flooding 35
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Conclusions Knowledge of reservoir geology, mineraology, facies distribution,
lithologic variations is important when considering EOR methods for Bakken.
Miscible gas flooding can significantly enhance oil recovery from tight formations.
Immiscible gas flooding can lead to higher oil production rate at the beginning of injection process but ultimately recovers less oil than water flooding.
Reservoir permeability and porosity can be enhanced by mineral dissolution/leaching, but also reduced due to mobile fines and metal carbonate precipitation during CO2 flooding.
25
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Conclusions (cont’d)
Water flooding can improve the oil recovery from tight formations but may be accompanied by injectivity problems.
Understanding of complex interactions between rock, brine, surfactant, and oil is key to surfactant flooding.
Surfactant flooding recovers oil through interfacial tension reduction and wettability alteration.
26
Copyright @ SRC 2015
Mars Luo, Manager, EOR Processes Phone: 306-787-5652 Email: luo@src.sk.ca
Connect With Us
www.src.sk.ca
top related