co2 eor application to iranian oil field

7/27/2019 Co2 Eor Application to Iranian Oil Field

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/co2-eor-application-to-iranian-oil-field 1/42

CO2 EOR Application to Iranian Oil Fields

IOR Research Institute



Introduction to CO2 EOR



Contribution of CO2 EOR to Oil Production(W.M. Schulte, Shell Intl. E&P, IPTC-10146-MS-P)



Worldwide CO2 injection projects

CO2 injection worldwide potentials



Advantages of CO2 Injection for EOR Purposes

• Environmental purposes (Carbon Disposal)

• Higher incremental oil recovery reported comparing to similar methods (6-18 % OOIP)

– 6 – 15 MSCF CO2/ 1 BBL Oil

– Achievable miscibility due to low MMP

– Decreasing oil viscosity and density due to swelling effect



Challenges of CO2 Injection

• High capturing and transportation costs

– Capturing cost: US$ 0.5-2/MSCF

– Transportation cost: US$ 22,000/inch/mile

• Corrosion costs in production facilities and pipelines

• HC contamination

– Recycled gas injection

• Asphaltine instability

• Early break through in case of immiscible flooding



NIOC Heading to CO2 EOR



Status of the project

• Submitted to and approved by NIOC board in

February 2008

• Started in April 2008

• Workgroups assigned

• Ongoing now on data gathering and finding CO2

EOR potentials



Steering Committee (NIOC Board)

1. Leading the project toward its main objectives

2. Eliminating executive and management obstacles throughout

the project

3. Facilitating international consultancy and cooperation

4. Providing required human and financial resources and required

tools

Project Organizational Chart



1. Nominating fields/reservoirs for CO2 injection considering

strategic and technical concerns

2. Determining project activities breakdown and engaging qualified

technical parties

3. Evaluating results and reporting the progress to the steering

committee

4. Establishing constructive interaction between project

supervisors and operators

Project Organizational Chart

Technical working groups



Working GroupsOperating Companies Research Partnership

I n t e r n

a t i o n

a l C o

n s u l t a n t



EconomicsEconomics

PlanningLead

Planning

Lead

CO2/EOR Manager CO2/EOR Manager

SubsurfaceLead

SubsurfaceLead

Seismology

Production Geology

Petrophysics

Reservoir Eng

Production Tech

Seismology

Production Geology

Petrophysics

Reservoir Eng

Production Tech

CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture

CO2 Captur e Techn

CO2/EOR facilit ies

CO2 Capture Techn

CO2/EOR faciliti es

SurfaceLead

Surface

Lead

Process Engineering

Facilities Eng

OperationsPhilosophy

Cost & Schedule

Project Execution

Process Engineering

Facilities Eng

Operations

Philosophy

Cost & Schedule

Project Execution

Data ManagementData ManagementWell EngineeringLead

Well EngineeringLead Liaison/HSE

Liaison/HSE

Data AssistantsData Assistants

HSEHSE

CO2 EOR Team



Phase I Breakdown

Full Field Development PlanFull Field Development Planfor selected CO2/EORfor selected CO2/EORfield/reservoir field/reservoir

Feasibility Study of mostFeasibility Study of mostattractive CO2attractive CO2EOR field/EOR field/resres ..

Preliminary Assessment of Preliminary Assessment of CO2 captureCO2 captureoptionsoptions

High Level Screening for High Level Screening for potential CO2potential CO2EOR candidatesEOR candidates

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 1 0 1 0

1

1

1

1

1 2 1 2

1 3 1 3

1 4 1 4

1 5 1 5

1 6 1 6

1 7 1 7

1 8 1 8

1 9 1 9

2 0 2 0

2 1 2 1

2 2 2 2

2 3 2 3

2 4 2 4

2 5 2 5

2 6 2 6

2 7 2 7

2 8 2 8

2 9 2 9

3 0 3 0

Phase 1Phase 1MonthsMonths

Work Plan and Time TableWork Plan and Time Table



Contract PrinciplesContract Principles

Pilot DesignPilot Design

11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99

Phase 2Phase 2

MonthsMonths

Work Plan and Time TableWork Plan and Time Table

Phase II Breakdown



Field Screening and Selection Methods



Empirical selection criteria



Step one

Reservoir

Parameters

Geffen

(1973)

Lewin and

Associates

(1976)

NPC

(1976)

McRee

(1977)

Iyoho

(1978)

OTA

(1978)

Caroana

(1982)

Tarber and

Martin (1983)

Visc. (cp) at res.

cond<3 <12 =<10 <5 <10 =<12 <2 <15

Gravity (API) >30 >30 >=27 >35 30-45 27-30 >40 >26

Sorw >0,25 >0,25 - >0,25 >0,25 - >30 >30

Depth (ft) - >3000 >2300 >2000 >25002500-

7200

<9800

(1)

>2000

Temp (F) - NC (2) <250 - - - <195 NC

Reservoir pres.

(pisa)>1100 >1500 - - - - >1200 -

Perm. (md) - NC - >5 >10 - >1 NC

Reservoir

Parameters

Geffen

(1973)

Lewin and

Associates

(1976)

NPC

(1976)

McRee

(1977)

Iyoho

(1978)

OTA

(1978)

Caroana

(1982)

Tarber and

Martin (1983)

Visc. (cp) at res.

cond<3 <12 =<10 <5 <10 =<12 <2 <15

Gravity (API) >30 >30 >=27 >35 30-45 27-30 >40 >26

Sorw >0,25 >0,25 - >0,25 >0,25 - >30 >30

Depth (ft) - >3000 >2300 >2000 >25002500-

7200

<9800

(1)

>2000

Temp (F) - NC (2) <250 - - - <195 NC

Reservoir pres.

(pisa)>1100 >1500 - - - - >1200 -

Perm. (md) - NC - >5 >10 - >1 NC

Screening according to most important criteria and reported tables



Input page

If MMP is unknown:It is calculated internally

according to correlations

If µ oil is unknown:It is calculated internally

with knowing Rs

Heterogeneity of Reservoir is considered by Dykstra-Parson

coefficient



If MMP and µ oil is known:It is inserted manually

Input page



Output page



X-Y Plots locate our reservoir characterist ics between properties of other

CO2 miscible injection projects



Step two

Aiming to rank reservoirs according to mentioned criteria

0 100 0lower limit optimum upper limit

-10µo (cp)

Depth (ft) 2300 -

Pressure (psi) 0.95*MMP Pfrac= Depth*0.6 - 300

Permeability (md) 5 -

So (%) 25 -

API 22 48

Temperature (oF) 88 250

Properties Lower Limit Upper Limit



Ranking parameter

• Reference: SPE 35431

0.0220Porosity, %

0.0320Dip, o

0.07300Permeability, md

0.1150Net Oil Thickness, ft

0.14160Temperature , oF

0.191.30Pressure/MMP

0.260Oil Saturation %

0.2437API Gravity

WeightOptimumParameter



Step three

• Estimating oil recovery by CO2 miscible Displacement

• Recovery Calculation Methods:

1. Shaw and Bachu (JCPT, Volume 41, No.9)2. Claridge (SPE 2930)



Primary conceptual simulation



CO2 EOR Screening Tools

• CO2 PM

• CO2 Prophet

• Kinder Morgan Predictive Tool

• Maestro Screening Tool

• Epic CO2 Analysis Package



CO2 Prophet

• Water and CO2 Flood Prediction Software.

• Developed by Texaco Exploration and Production Technology

Department, as a part of U.S. DOE.

• A screening tool which falls between crude empiricalcorrelations and sophisticated numerical simulators.

• Generates streamlines for fluid flow between injection andproduction wells and then does displacement and recoverycalculations along the streamtubes.

• A finite difference method is used for the displacementcalculations.

• This program is often used in conjunction with the Kinder Morgan’s CO

2

scoping models to obtain a first pass onviability of CO2 flooding.



CO2 Prophet Analysis

Input Reservoir and Fluid Data

Data Collection

Input or Calculate OOIP

Develop Injection Patterns and Rates

Input Reservoir and Fluid Data

Data Collection

Input or Calculate OOIP

Develop Injection Patterns and Rates

Calculate & Evaluate Production Forecasts then

Proceed To Economic Analysis



Prophet File Data Saturations Pre-Set Patterns Custom PatternOptions

Esc Exit, Tab between items, or UseMouse

Dykstra-Parsons Coeficient 0.7

Reservoir Temperature 100 ºF

Average Reservoir Pressure 2000 psia

Minimum Miscibility Pressure 1200 psia

Oil Viscosity 2.0 cP

Oil Formation Volume Factory, Bo 1.4RB/STB

Reservoir Data

[ •

OK Cancel

Prophet File Data Saturations Pre-Set Patterns Custom PatternOptions

Esc Exit, Tab between items, or Use Mouse

Solution Gas-Oil Ration, RS 500 scf/STB

Oil Gravity, API 100 ºAPI

Gas Specific Gravity o.7 Air=1

Water Viscosity 0.8 cP

Water Salinity 100000 ppm

More Reservoir Data

[ •

OK Cancel

Software interface

Prophet File Data Saturations Pre-Set Patterns Custom Pattern Options

Esc Exit, Tab between items, or Use Mouse

Area10.00acres

Thickness116.77feet

Porosity0.200fraction

Calculate OOIP

OK Cancel



Ahwaz and Bibi-Hakimeh Example



Normalized Comparison of CO2 behavior

Cumulative oil

Vol. of original oil

Cumulative injection

Pore volume



Normalized Comparison of CO2 behavior

Comparison of waterflood vs CO flood and WAG



Comparison of waterflood vs. CO2 flood and WAGfor 100-acre, 5-spot pattern



Sensitivity of Oil Production to Dykstra

Parson's Coefficient (BIBI HAKIMEH)



Sensitivity of Oil Production to Reservoir

Average Pressure

Sensitivity of Oil Production to Mixing Parameter



Sensitivity of Oil Production to Mixing Parameter



Comments

1. CO2 EOR in carbonate reservoirs is a mature and proven technology worldwide (> 40 yrs).

2. Recovery factor using miscible CO2 is 6% -18% OOIP. Immiscible CO2 50% of miscible.

3. MMP equals initial bubble point pressure.

4. Of course, flood costs vary depending on field size, pattern spacing, location and existing

facilities, but in general, total operating expenses (exclusive of CO2 cost) range from $2 to

$3/bbl, or about 10% more than water flood operating expenses.

5. It takes about 6 to 15 MCF of CO2 to produce a barrel of oil. Once a flood is underway,

produced CO2 is captured and recycled, reducing the need for purchased gas.

6. In many cases, CO2 flooding can yield profits in excess of $7/bbl, based on oil at $18/bbl.

D l t t f R i K l M CO EOR



Development concept for Ramin-Kupal-Maroon CO2 EOR

OOIP in the cluster: 7 – 8 Bbbl

Net CO2 outflow from the power plant:200 – 300 MMSCF/D



Thank you for your attention!

co2 eor application to iranian oil field

Documents