CMTC 151422

EOR Prospects for a Mature Oil Reservoir in an Oil Field of Potwar Region,
Pakistan
B. Amjad, M.D. Munawar, M.U. Javeed, University of Engineering and Technology Lahore

Copyright 2012, Carbon Management Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Carbon Management Technology Conference held in Orlando, Florida, USA, 79 February 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by a CMTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Carbon Management Technology Conference, its officers, or members.
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Carbon Management Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of CMTC copyright..

Abstract
Enhanced oil and gas recovery is going to be the future option for Pakistani reservoirs sooner or later, when conventional gas
deposits will be running short and oil reservoirs will not be able to continue production under their current depletion
mechanisms.
Reservoir analysed in this study is one of the four vertically stacked heavy oil reservoirs in an oilfield of Potwar region and
producing at lower production rate. This work is an attempt to screen the subject reservoir for future decisions. First fluid
characterisation was executed using experimental PVT data. History match was performed using available production and
reservoir data. Since flowing bottom-hole pressures were unavailable, they were generated using Guo Ghalambor correlation
using tubing head pressure information. Afterwards, reservoir screening was performed using available criteria in the literature
and updated with world EOR survey. Screening dictated the application of miscible carbon dioxide flooding for the subject
reservoir. Also the reservoir pressure was above bubble point, showing the feasibility for CO2 injection. Minimum miscibility
pressure was estimated empirically using Alston et al. correlation and numerically by slim-tube simulation. MMPs resulted
from both methods well agreed.
Three scenarios were made to analyse the performance of reservoir under the influence of revitalization planning. Additional
producer was placed in the subject reservoir, which ceased flow after 16 years adding 1 MMSTB of oil to the reserves.
Injecting water enhanced the life of the reservoir to 24 years yielding 2.8 MMSTB of oil while the application of CO2 miscible
flooding incremented 3.7 MMTSB of oil in the same duration as waterflood.
Results inferred from this study will prove to be a breakthrough in the field of R&D for welcoming enhanced oil recovery in
Pakistan. It also encourages the industry look ahead to the revitalization of mature and aging oil fields.
Introduction
Field XYZ under study was located in Potwar Region of Pakistan which is home to various oilfields which are producing from
light to heavy oils.
The Potwar Basin has been actively explored for hydrocarbons since 1870 and first success came in 1914 when Attock Oil
Company discovered oil at Khaur. The Dhulian, Joyamir and Balkassar field were then discovered by the same company in
1918, 1943 and 1945 respectively. In 1978 Amoco was granted the exploration license in the Northern Potwar. In 1982, the
concession was granted to the Occidental of Pakistan, who discovered oil from the Eocene formations and later from
Paleocene and Permian horizons. Similarly, NOC 1 was also granted exploration license in the Northern Potwar Deformed
Zone (NPDZ), where it drilled several exploratory, appraisal as well as development wells successively.
In 1990, with the help of 3D Seismic Survey for the first time in the history of Pakistan, Rajpet1 field was explored. Fig. 1 is
showing the horizon map of a reservoir in Rajpet oilfield.
Geologically, Rajpet structure is NE-SW trending anticline. The producing part of the structure is pop up block formed
between two thrust faults. The closed area is about 12 sq.km bounded by 1800 m.sec contour 2 .
Field had four vertically stacked reservoirs and to-date 5 wells had been drilled in this field and 4 were producing (as on 3112-2010)
1
2

NOC and Rajpet are alias for operating company and field under study, respectively.
Field introductory documents

CMTC 151422

Wells
Well R1
It was completed in Khewra sandstone and currently under production. Oil API gravity is 19 to 22.5. It is the well, studied in
this work.
Well R2
First completed in Sakessar limestone and ceased flowing after producing for 8 years it ceased flowing. It was recompleted in
Tobra and after producing for 6 years it ceased to flow.
Well R3
Firstly it was completed in Khewra which ceased flowing after 2 years. Later on it was dually completed in Jutana and Tobra
formations. Tobra ceased flowing after 14 months of production while oil Jutana has been producing since then, oil of API
gravity 22 to 17.4.
Well R4
After testing in Khewra, Sakessar and Tobra, well was completed in Tobra. The well was producing oil of around 25 API
with no water.
Well R5
It was completed in Khewra and is producing oil and gas with no water.
Fluid Characterization
The reservoir understudy was Khewra Sandstone. Oil of Khewra was sampled and analysed in1994 by Core Labs.
Characterization of this crude was performed with commercial PVT simulation software; PVTi. Modified Peng-Robinson
(PR3) equation-of-state was fitted to the following lab conducted PVT experiments.
a. Constant Composition Expansion (CCE)
b.

Differential Liberation (DL)

c.

Bubble Point

d.

Separator

Fig. A1 to 13 in Appendix A shows the regressed experiments. The match ended up with overall error of less than 10%.
Where, experimental bubble point pressure was 1964.70 psia and that predicted by equation-of-state (EOS) was 1964.74 psia.
Enhanced Oil Recovery
Producing reserves are called primary when they are produced by primary recovery techniques using the inborn natural
energy of the reservoir. The driving energy may be derived from the liberation and expansion of dissolved gas, from the
expansion of the gas cap or of an active aquifer, from gravity drainage, or from a combination of these effects. But when
reservoir runs short of this energy, external source of vitality is supplied and then the reserves are categorized as improved
recovery reserves. Energy can be provided by any of following secondary and tertiary methods
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Water injection
Gas injection
Miscible gas injection
Thermal flooding
Chemical flooding

Method a and b are secondary and c, d and e are tertiary. But there is no hard and fast rule for classification. From
Worldwide EOR Survey (2010) it can be seen, especially in case of thermal methods that they are applied as primary mode of
production in heavy oil reservoirs of Canada, Venezuela and other regions.
EOR in Pakistan
Concept of EOR application to Pakistani oil reservoirs is not new. Following are reviews of previous research done in EOR for
Pakistani oil fields.

CMTC 151422

Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery

Work on microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) was initiated in late 80s when Raza and Sheikh (1988) pointed several oil
wells like Balkassar, Juyamir, Dhulian and so on, for microbial treatment and suggested these reservoirs as potential targets for
MEOR, where oil found was very thick. Later, Iqbal (1994) collected 100 samples of bacteria enriched oil from different
locations in Pakistan and conducted lab experiments. He screened the favourable bacteria from 5 samples to be used for
microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) on Pakistani oilfields.
Enhanced Water Flooding (Polymer)
History of polymer injection in Pakistan dates back to 2007 when BP (2007, 2009) set to inject Bright Water in Tangri oil
field to control the fluid mobility and breakthrough timing. As a result, oil production rate was doubled.
This work is another milestone towards planning for carbon dioxide flooding in an oil field of Pakistan.
CASE DESCRIPTION
Subject reservoir is called mature because it has passed the peak in production rate and currently in declining mode. According
to Babadagli (2005), increasing water and gas production, decreasing pressure, and aging equipment are other indicators of
maturity.
Technologies to give new life to mature fields are either based on well or reservoir applications. A previous study by Ali et al.
(2010) on well 3 of subject field offer well redevelopment practices like gravel packing to control sand production, downhole
water looping (DWL) to control water conning and electric submersible pump (ESP) to increase oil production. But our work
dealt with the reservoir applications in following order
a.

Estimating remaining oil-in place and to-date reservoir pressure

b.

Screening subject reservoir (Khewra) for CO2 flooding based on conventional method using results of Worldwide
EOR Survey (2010)

c.

Estimation of MMP for pure CO2 using empirical and numerical techniques

d.

Proposing Injection and production strategies

OIP Estimation
Oil in place was calculated using decline curve analysis. Results were agreed well with the material balance estimations
performed by the company in 2005; OIIP 11.5 MMSTB. Fig. 3 shows the decline analysis. Analysis resulted in OIP value of
7.38 MMSTB (as on 31-12-2010) with decline rate of 1.378 per year and abandonment rate of 3 STB/D. Analysis was done
using Fekete Harmony.
History Matching Simulation Model
Simulation model for the subject reservoir was developed and updated with the production history shown in Fig. 2. Results are
shown in Fig. 4 to 6. Since the bottomhole pressures were not available, they were calculated with Guo and Ghalambor (2002)
correlation. This difference of flowing bottomhole pressure simulated with that calculated with the correlation is shown in Fig.
7.
The adequate match in history and simulation was difficult to attain owing to lack of relative permeability and capillary
pressure relationships, which were generated using Stones model. Although BHPs were not matched, it was ascertained that
to-date average reservoir pressure was sufficiently higher than bubble point.
Screening
Table 1 presents the essential reservoir information required for conventional screening. The survey also showed that steam
and CO2 injection were most commonly applied EOR methods across the globe. So this study intends to screen first the
subject reservoir for these two methods. Fig. 8 shows that subject reservoir was not falling within the range for application of
steam flooding mainly due to higher depth and lower porosity and permeability. While from Fig. 9, it was clear that miscible
CO2 flood well suited the reservoir.

CMTC 151422

Carbon Dioxide Flooding

The CO2 flooding is a recognized enhanced oil recovery technique to obtain high oil recovery from various types of oil
reservoirs. It can be injected as immiscible or miscible gas but immiscible has lower efficiency than miscible flooding.
Miscibility occurs with reservoir oils in two ways: first contact miscibility (FCM) and multiple contact miscibility (MCM).
FCM is when single phase gets developed by mixing of CO2 and oil, while MCM occurs in-situ, through alteration of CO2 and
crude composition as CO2 moves through the play. Pressure required to develop FCM is higher than that required to develop
MCM. Minimum pressure which is required to develop MCM is called minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) or it is also
called multiple-contact miscibility pressure (MCMP).
MMP is frequently used as a main criterion for screening and selecting injection solvents for EOR. For instance, if reservoir
pressure is above the MMP of CO2 then the project would be feasible even if CO2 is impure provided that the MMP of the gas
doesnt exceed reservoir pressure.
Previously, it had been proved that reservoir pressure and even flowing bottom-hole pressure were above bubble point, yet it
was confirmed by well inflow and outflow models, generated using a single value of bottom-hole pressure at the time build-up
test was conducted (Fig. 10).
Empirical Estimation of MMP
An attempt was made to use published correlation of Alston et al. (1985), which Dong et al. (2001) considered more reliable
than others. The correlation is
MMP CO 2 = 8 . 78 * 10 4 (T R )

1 . 06

X vol
X int

(M C 5 + )1 .78

0 . 136

Where, MMPCO = CO2 minimum miscibility pressure for live oil (psia), TR = reservoir temperature (F), MC5+ = molecular
2
weight of C5+ fraction (lb/lb-mole), Xvol = mole fraction of volatile components (C1 and N2), Xint = mole fraction of
intermediate components (C2-4, CO2 and H2S). Substituting the information from Table 2 in Alstons correlation we got
MMPCO = 2071 psia
2

Numerical Estimation of MMP

Slim-tube (ST) simulation was performed to find the MMP for pure CO2. It was observed that MMP estimated numerically
was in good correspondence with that found from correlation; 2090 psia (Fig. 11).
Injection Planning
Fig. 12 shows the simulation model of reservoir under study, with a producer R1, since after approx. 16 years of primary
production (Fig. 4 to 6) when water production started increasing, this study intended to acquire some redevelopment
strategies before the encroaching water totally bypass the 7.38 MMSTB of oil.
Scenarios
Following three main scenarios were made and compared in terms of pore-volume injected (PVI) and oil recovery efficiency.
1.

Infill, No injection

2.

Waterflooding

3.

CO2 injection

Infill, No Injection
A new producer: R1A was added to the same reservoir at a distance of 1 kilometre from well R1. It was observed that oil
production from R1A maintained at 500 STB/DAY for two years and then start declining. On the whole, R1A added 1
MMSTBO to the reserves in next 16 years and ceased to flow.
Secondary Waterflooding
An injector W1 was introduced in-between R1 and R1A. Water was set to inject at 4000 psia, as a result 2.8 MMSTBO was
added to the reserves till next 24 years.
Secondary Carbon Dioxide Flooding
Injecting carbon dioxide from same well W1, at miscible conditions yielded double production rates than water and thus
doubled the reserves to 3.7 MMSTBO in next 24 years.

CMTC 151422

LIMITATIONS
Though the whole study was managed sophisticatedly, still following factors might caused ambiguity in results.
Lesser information was available about the subject reservoir than in most simulation studies.

Flowing bottomhole pressure surveys were unavailable. Buo and Ghalambor correlation was used to reimburse for them.

SCAL information was absent; STONE 3 phase model 2 was used to compensate for it.

At least 10% regression errors in EOS fitting

CONCLUSIONS
Following conclusions were drawn from this study
If well R1 keep on producing under original conditions, it would yield mere 0.5 MMSTB of oil in next 24 years owing to
increased water influx.

Adding a producer R1A to the reservoir added 1 MMSTB of oil to the cumulative production till 2036

Injecting water proved to supplement the life of well R1A till 2044

Miscible CO2 flood doubled the oil rate yielded additional 3.7 MMSTB of oil till 2044

REFERENCES
Ali, S.A., Awan, U., Shafqatullah and Rasheed, U. 2010. Case study of an Oil field in Potwar Region: Reserve Estimation &
Production Enhancement Recommendations. BSc dissertation, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore,
Pakistan.
Alston, R.B., Kokolis, G.P., and James, C.F. 1985. CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressures: A Correlation for Impure CO2
Streams and Live Oil Systems. SPEJ 4: 268-274. SPE-11959-PA. doi: 10.2118/11959-PA
Babadagli, T. 2005. Mature Field Development A Review. Paper SPE 93884 presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference held in Madrid, Spain, 13-15 June. doi: 10.2118/93884-MS.
Bilal Amjad. 2011. Statistical Analysis of EOR Field Experience and Renovation of Conventional Screening Criteria. (paper
unpublished)
BP. 2007. Pop Goes the Polymer. Frontiers 12: 6-11.
BP. 2009. Technology in Action. Frontiers 4: 30-35.
Dong, M., Huang, S., Dyer, S.B., and Mourits, F.M. 2001. A Comparison of CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure
Determinations for Weyburn Crude Oil. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 31 (2001) 13-22.
Iqbal, M.J. 1994. Isolation and Characterization of Oil Degrading Microorganisms and their Possible Role in Enhanced Oil
Recovery. PhD dissertation, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Raza, H.A. and Sheikh, A.M. 1988. In Petroleum for the Future. Pakistan Oil Fields The Pioneers in Exploration and
Production in Pakistan: 151158.
Worldwide EOR Survey. 2010. Oil & Gas J. (14 April).

Fig. 1, Digitized map of Jutana with producers (R1, R2, R3, R4A, R5) and test wells (S and D)

CMTC 151422

Fig. 2, Production history of Well R1

Fig. 3, Decline curve analysis for reserve estimation of well R1

CMTC 151422

Fig. 4, Matched oil production rate

Fig. 5, Gas production: simulated and historical.

Fig. 6, Water production: simulated and historical.

CMTC 151422

Fig. 7, Flowing bottomhole pressure: simulated and historical

Fig. 8, Coloured lines showing reservoir information (7 parameters) for 119 steam flooding projects, line in yellow was lower threshold limit
for respective range, while line in black is representing subject reservoir [from Bilal (2011)]

CMTC 151422

Fig. 9, Coloured lines showing reservoir information (7 parameters) for 117 Miscible CO2 flooding projects, line in yellow was lower
threshold limit for respective ranges, while line in black is representing subject reservoir [from Bilal (2011)]

10

CMTC 151422

Fig. 10, Inflow and outflow relationhips for well R1. Base case IPR was generated using Pressure data available from a build up test. Future
IPRs and OPRs clearly indicating that even under to-date conditions static reservoir pressure is far above bubble point; proving the
feasibility of CO2 miscible flooding.

Table 1 Reservoir Information

API Gravity
19 22
Permeability 20.1 md
12 %
Porosity
11,936.5
Depth
Temperature 254 F
1.5 cp
Viscosity
68%
Sinitial

CMTC 151422

11

Table 2. Well R1 crude composition

Component
Mole %
N2
1.41
CO2
0.14
C1
24.55
C2
6.77
C3
5.86
IC4
1.69
NC4
3.40
IC5
1.82
NC5
2.40
C6
3.28
C7
5.06
C8
5.23
C9
3.92
C10
3.72
C11+
30.75
MW C5+ = 136.68
Tr = 254 F
MW C7+ = 130.88
MW C11+ = 360.00

Fig. 11, Slim-Tube Simulation for Pure CO2

R1A
W1
R1

Fig. 12, Simulation Model of subject reservoir (Khewra)

12

CMTC 151422

APPENDIX A
EOS fitting to the PVT experimental results plays a vital role in overall performance of the reservoir fluid, especially under
carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery mechanism. Following are the grouped composition of crude and plots of regressed
PVT parameters.
Table A1. Crude composition after grouping
Component Composition
(mole %)
N2
1.41
CO2
0.14
C1
24.55
C2+
30.28
C8+
12.87
C15+
14.198
C38+
16.552

Constant Composition Expansion (CCE)

Fig. A1, Liquid/oil viscosity

Fig. A3, Relative volume of oil

Differential Liberation (DL)

Fig. A2, Liquid/oil density

Fig. A4, Liquid/oil density

CMTC 151422

13

Fig. A5, Gas z-factor

Fig. A8, Oil relative volume

Fig. A6, Gas-oil ratio

Fig. A9, Gas gravity

Fig. A7, Total relative volume

Fig. A10, Gas formation-volume factor

14

CMTC 151422

Separator Test

Fig. A13, Liquid density

Fig. A11, Oil relative volume

Fig. A12, Gas-oil ratio