View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
33rd IEA EOR SymposiumAugust 26th – 30th, 2012
R i S k t h C dRegina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Implementation of CO2-EOR Huff ‘n’ Puff Pilot Test in Oil Fields Offshore of Vietnam
- Advances in CO2-EOR Research –August 29th , 2012
Aiko Nishizaki1, Yusuke Fujita2, Tadao Uchiyama2
Sunao Takagi1, Yoshiaki Ueda2 , Hiroshi Mituishi1
1.Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation, 2.JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation
A dAgenda1 Introduction1. Introduction
2. Operation Planning and Designp g g
3. Pilot Test Operation
4. Pilot Test Results
5. Conclusions
2
A dAgenda1 Introduction1. Introduction
2. Operation Planning and Designp g g
3. Pilot Test Operation
4. Pilot Test Results
5. Conclusions
3
1 Introduction - objectives1. Introduction - objectivesTo study the CO2 EOR applicability to the offshore oil field in Vietnam through an international joint study between Japan and Vietnam
International Joint Study
Laboratory Study Simulation Study CO2 Source StudySlimtube Test
Interfacial TensionSwelling Test
Coreflood Test
Geological Model UpscaleHistory MatchEOS Model
Optimized CO2 EOR
Site SurveyFacility Modification
Cost EstimationCoreflood Test Optimized CO2 EOR
4
1 Introduction - test field overview1. Introduction - test field overview
= Reservoir Description =
API Oil Gravity : 36 38- API Oil Gravity : 36-38- Pressure (initial) : 3,100 [psi]- Depth : 2,100 [m]- Oil Saturation : over 30 [%]
Hanoi
- Permeability : over 10 [md]
Da Nang
Hue
Rang Dong
H Chi Mi h CitHo Chi Minh City
Test Well
5
100km200km300km
Test Well
About 120km Offshore of Vung Tau
A dAgenda1 Introduction1. Introduction
2. Operation Planning and Designp g g
3. Pilot Test Operation
4. Pilot Test Results
5. Conclusions
6
2 Operation Planning and Design2. Operation Planning and Design
I j t Oil
Three Stage Actions
Inject CO2
Soak ProduceOil,
Water & CO2 • Single Well
• Short Test• Small CO2 Requirement
H ff
Reservoir FluidInteraction
q• Minimum Impact to The Facility
Huff Soak Puff
To Confirm CO2 Injectivity To Confirm Increased Oil ProductionObjectives To Confirm Increased Oil Production To Confirm Some Mechanisms of CO2 EOR
- Volumetric Swelling
Objectives
7
- Viscous Reduction Effects- Change in Oil Property
2 Operation Planning and Design2. Operation Planning and Design
(LM Section of BM producer)(LM Section of BM producer)“Test Well”
(LM Section of BM producer)(LM Section of BM producer)
Lower Miocene
Actual Reservoir Pressure(=2,800psi)Higher than Expected (2,400~2,600psi)
Basement
Low Deviation(24 deg) Actual Oil Saturation(=Avg 31-36% by RST)
(Estimated Oil Saturation before The Test=20-30%)
8
A dAgenda1 Introduction1. Introduction
2. Operation Planning and Designp g g
3. Pilot Test Operation
4. Pilot Test Results
5. Conclusions
9
3 Pilot Test Operation - operation sequence
Perforation of The Target Section
P&A of Lower Reservoir Section
3. Pilot Test Operation - operation sequence
Completion String
C i Sh t i & RST L i #1
Pre CO2 Injection Flow
Perforation of The Target Section
Casing
CO2 Injection
Shut-in & RST Logging #1
Perforation IntervalPost CO2 Injection Flow
Soaking & RST Logging #2
Target Reservoir
MPLT Logging & BHS
Shut-in & RST Logging #3
10
P&A of Target SectionLogging Tool
Total : 18days
A dAgenda1 Introduction1. Introduction
2. Operation Planning and Designp g g
3. Pilot Test Operation
4. Pilot Test Results
5. Conclusions
11
4 Pilot Test Results - CO injection performance4. Pilot Test Results - CO2 injection performance
BHPBHP
Total CO2 Injected Volume = 111 [ton] (=2.1 [MMscf]), MMP = 2,980 [psi]
WHPInjection Rate
12
4 Pilot Test Results - production performance4. Pilot Test Results - production performance Oil Rate GOR BS&W Choke Size CO2 in Gas API 60
Pre Flow Post Flow
80
90
100
2,500
3,000
Gas
[%]
40API
Inje
ctio
n60
702,000
[ /64
"]; C
O2
in
GO
R [s
cf/s
tb] 30
60;
Water Cut Oil RateCO
2 CO2
Concentration
30
40
50
1,000
1,500
%];
Cho
ke S
ize
Oil
Rat
e [b
bl/d
]; 20
API
Concentration
10
20500
Wat
er C
ut [%O 10
GOR
950 bpd -> 1,500 bpd+550 bpd (1.6 times)
13
00
5/23
5/24
5/25
5/26
5/27
5/28
5/29
5/30
5/31
6/01
6/02
Date
0
2
4 Pilot Test Results - production performance4. Pilot Test Results - production performance Oil Rate GOR BS&W Choke Size CO2 in Gas API 60
Pre Flow Post Flow
80
90
100
2,500
3,000
Gas
[%]
40API
Inje
ctio
n60
702,000
[ /64
"]; C
O2
in
GO
R [s
cf/s
tb] 30
60;
Water Cut Oil RateCO
2 CO2
Concentration
30
40
50
1,000
1,500
%];
Cho
ke S
ize
Oil
Rat
e [b
bl/d
]; 20
API
Concentration
10
20500
Wat
er C
ut [%O 10
GOR WC=50-60% ->0%
14
00
5/23
5/24
5/25
5/26
5/27
5/28
5/29
5/30
5/31
6/01
6/02
Date
0
2
4 Pilot Test Results – the logging analysis4. Pilot Test Results – the logging analysis
Perm
ELAN(OH Log in 1997)
#2 RST(After CO2)
#3 RST(After Post-Flow)
#1 RST(Before CO2)
TPHIBefore CO2After CO2Post-Flow
2
3MainlyWater
0 So 10.1Perm
100[md]
0 So 1 0.45 -0.15[m3/m3]
0 So 1
3Zone
Perf
.#2
CO2 High P4
WaterHigh Perm.
4Best CO2 Injected Zone
So reductionby CO2 Inj.
CO2Mid. P
ShaOil bank
5
6WaterMid. Perm.
Shalek
Swept out
5
62nd Best CO2
Perf
.#1
CO2
CO2 Mid. P
Sha
6
78
Water
Mid. Perm.
Shale
6
78
2 Best CO2 Injected Zone
15
CO2 High P9High Perm. 9
4 Pilot Test Results – the fluid analysis4. Pilot Test Results – the fluid analysis
Viscosity & Swelling Test
Oil SamplesOil Fingerprint
6 54.82.2 1.6
3 16.7 4.6 7.9
90%
100% C31+
C23 C30
Oil Composition
Swelling Test
12.4
18.7
8.1
15.1
11.2
6.2
12.0
17.2
11.9
22.7
6.5 6.43.1
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% C23-C30
C15-C22
C7-C14
IC4-C6
C2-C30.0
1.0
2.0
3.0a
bc
d*2
e
f
gP ris/phy (s)
t
u
vx
y
Figure 1B: rada plot showing the correlation of eight(8) N-oils from the RANG DONG Fie ld(15-2-rd)
0.1
50.4
5.2
37.5 27.8
0%
10%
20%
30%
Pre-flow Rec Oil
Post-flow Rec Oil(#2)
Post-flow Rec Oil(#3)
N2-C1
CO2
h
i
jk
lm
no
p*4
q
r
1.111 1.02 1.12 1.3001.414 N21P N06P N17PTest Well Well A Well B
Oil fingerprint analysis shows the same type of oil produced as the other Lower Miocene wells.
Oil composition analysis also indicates there is not much difference with the t ti L Mi il
16
representative Lower Miocene oil. Oil swelling and viscosity reduction test shows the improvement of oil mobility
by CO2 is calculated more than 3 times of the original flowing condition.
4 Pilot Test Results – the simulation analysis4. Pilot Test Results – the simulation analysisSimulation Model
2000
Actual No Injection Case CO2 Injection Case
Production Oil Rate100ft (17grids)
1500 [ft]
80010001200140016001800
ate,
bbl
/d
Inje
ctio
n
Perf. #2100ft
At The End of Soaking
0200400600800
5/25 5/26 5/27 5/28 5/29 5/30 5/31 6/1 6/2 6/3
Oil
Ra
CO
2 I
80ft
Perf. #1
Layer Zone Assumption
Date
8090
100
% n
Water Cut0.0 0.7CO2 Concentration in Oil
y p1 3 Water Zone2 4 Oil Zone3 5 Shale4 6 Water Zone
203040506070
Wat
er C
ut, %
O2
Inje
ctio
n17
5 7 Oil Zone6 8 Shale7 9 Oil Zone
01020
5/25 5/26 5/27 5/28 5/29 5/30 5/31 6/1 6/2 6/3
W
Date
C
4 Pilot Test Results – the simulation analysis4. Pilot Test Results – the simulation analysis
Actual No Injection Case CO2 Injection Case
Production Oil RateThe differential oil rate between
1400160018002000
bbl/d
Actual No Injection Case CO2 Injection Case
tion
No injection and CO2 injectionindicates 214 [bbl] oil increment
by CO2 injection.
400600800
10001200
Oil
Rat
e, b
CO
2 In
ject
0200
5/25 5/26 5/27 5/28 5/29 5/30 5/31 6/1 6/2 6/3Date
Oil Increment
Parameter Unit Simulation Calucluation Result
Injected CO2 Mscf 2,100Oil I t bbl 214
18
Oil Increment bbl 214CO2 Utilization factor Mscf/bbl 9.8
A dAgenda1 Introduction1. Introduction
2. Operation Planning and Designp g g
3. Pilot Test Operation
4. Pilot Test Results
5. Conclusions
19
5 Conclusions5. Conclusions
The first CO2-EOR Huff ‘n’ Puff pilot operation in Vietnam offshore Tfield was successfully achieved. No critical issue about operation including CO2 injection and flow back was identified.
Good and stable CO2 injectivity was confirmed. At the same time, good responses to show CO2-EOR effect were also observed as oil increase, water cut oil saturation reduction, and component/property
G
change.
The pilot test indicated over 200 barrels of oil increase by 111 tons Tof CO2 injection, which is equivalent to around 10 Mscf/bbl of CO2 utilization factor.
20
33rd IEA EOR SymposiumAugust 26th – 30th, 2012
R i S k t h C dRegina, Saskatchewan, Canada
XIN CAM ON !ARIGATO !
THANK YOU !THANK YOU !
Recommended