Cyclic Waterflooding

Leonid Surguchev
RF - Rogaland Research

Presentation outline
Cyclic injection concept
Experience
Field case: Heidrun field potential
Process evaluations
Cyclic process model
SWORD cyclic evaluation

Cyclic injection concept

Cyclic pulsed injection

Alternating waterflood patterns

Objective:
To improve recovery in heterogeneous, permeability-contrast
sandstone and fractured carbonate reservoirs under
waterflooding

Cyclic water injection

Injection are pulsed in pressurising and
depressurising half-cycles

Injection
pressure
Average
pressure under
traditional
waterflooding

Time
Average cyclic injection rate is maintained at a
level close to that of constant rate injection

Cyclic injection interplay of

Compressibility

Capillary forces

Gravity forces

Relative permeability

Hysteresis

Cycling injection target:

To alter viscous flow dominance by capillary and gravity forces

To explore compressibility and compaction effects

Compressibility, expansion

De-pressurizing half cycle

Pressurizing half cycle

+ Possible compaction effects

Gravitational siesta

Drainage of unswept areas

Parameter of reservoir heterogeneity

n

k h
kav=

i=1
n

h
i=1

= (1-k1av/Kav)(1-k2av/Kav)
i

Effect from cycling is higher in reservoirs with high value

of reservoir heterogeneity parameter and stratification

Frequency of changing cycles

With the displacement front moving towards the production wells the
period of cycles get extended

Higher cycle frequency is recommended for low compressibility

reservoirs

Cycle frequency: w = 2 k/Cl2

C - compressibility of rock (Cf) and fluid: C = SoCo + SwCw + SgCg + Cf/f
- viscosity
l - distance of oil displacement front from the injector
- porosity
k - average permeability

Cyclic injection effect in low permeable zone

Krow

Krw

Pc

oil drive

water
inbibition

Sw

Sw

Water flow capacity from low permeable zone is limited by

Low water relative permeability at low water saturation
Strong capillary pressure in water wet rock

Alternating waterflood patterns

Traditional

Changing flow paths by cycling

Ekofisk 4D
Seismic
(Difference map
between 1989 and
1999 survays

Blue areas
indicate
compaction/ water
movement

Favorable conditions for cyclic injection

Layered heterogeneous reservoir
Fractures
Communication between layers
Compressible fluids
Pressure-dependant permeability

Cyclic injection gas energy

An important point of difference from traditional
waterflooding is that in cyclic process the gas
energy remaining in the reservoir will be utilized to
maximum advantage.
Supplementary gas injection at cyclic waterflooding
could be beneficial by increasing compressibility of
the in-situ fluid.

Cyclic injection
Field proven IOR method !
Issues limiting application:
Process understanding
Process design
Quantitative evaluation
Prediction of the effect

Presentation outline
Cyclic injection concept
Experience
Field case: Heidrun field potential
Process evaluations
Cyclic process model
SWORD cyclic evaluation

First cyclic pulsed injection trials

USA: first observation of cyclic effect
In January 1961 at the carbonate Spraberry field in Texas a four day
freeze caused an accidental shut-down of injection. It was noticed that oil
production was increased from 720 to 1170 b/d during these four days. In
February water injection was deliberately reduced from 21 000 b/d to zero.
Similar effects of injection rate
fluctuation on oil rates were
observed in 1961-1962 at the
McCamey field in Texas.
When injection rates were
reduced from 2500 b/d to 440
b/d (83%), the oil production
rates went up from 84 to 270 b/d
(220%) coinciding with the
depressurizing phase of
pressure pulsing cycle.

Skaggs Pool field in New Mexico

Well 22

Well 34

Oil rates decline during periods of rising injection rates and tended to show peaks
after injection rates were declined.

Pulsed injection, USA experience

In the US the laboratory studies and field experiments were focused on so called
pressure pulsing method alternatively using the same well as injector and
producer. The method was compared with ocean frac practices in Oklahoma.
The ocean frac practice involved the injection of large quantities of water at
fracturing rate (generally without propping agent) followed by normal production
from the well.
The pressure pulsing method was used in many fractured carbonate leases
after primary drainage when reservoir pressure was depleted below saturation
pressure and released free gas expulsive energy was used in such huff and
puff operations.
The method was proven to compete with imbibition continuous waterflooding
in fractured fields like Eats Hennessey and Gar fields in Oklahoma, Rincon and
Salt Flat fields in Texas, Salt Creek field in Wyoming.

Ocean Fracs
not exactly Cyclic Injection, but
High rate injection / Fracturing
Ocean Fracs was used in the
Mississippian trend of Garfield, Major
and Alfalfa counties, Oklahoma in the
early 1960s.

Seen from above

Production after imbibition

Larger treatment volume
= Better result! .
Statistical data published by
Western Company in 1965.

Seen from above

Laboratory Pressure Pulse Test

Continental Oil Company (1966)

Fracture
Sorw= 0.3

Matrix Block
Sorw= 0.7

Waterflood to 99% water

Pressure Pulse Phase B: Production

Pressure Pulse Phase A: Injection

Pulse
No.

Injected fluid

Oil
Recovery
%O.I.I.P.

WOR
bbl/bbl

Water

15.0

0.1

Water

4.5

0.8

Water

2.7

1.0

Water

0.5

8.0

Gas+Water

4.5

2.4

Water

0.4

23

Gas+Water

4.6

2.7

Water

0.2

43

Cyclic injection, Soviet experience

In the Former Soviet Union cyclic injection was experimented in laboratories
and fields in Samara region first. Positive results of cyclic injection in
carbonate Pokrovskoye and Kalinovskoye fields laid the ground for further
investigation of cyclic waterflooding process and massive application of the
method on the fields of Samara region, Tartar republic in Volga-Ural basin
and in the West Siberia from the late sixties.
Cyclic injection was successfully implemented in several formations of a large
Romashkino field in Tartar republic where more then 50% of the injection
wells were involved in the cyclic injection process.
In the West Siberia, cyclic waterflooding was successfully implemented at such
major oil fields like Trekhozernoye, Ust-Balyk, Mamontovo, Pravdinskoye,
Fedorovskoye and other.

Cyclic injection to improve waterflooding

Improvement of waterflooding in heterogeneous sandstone reservoirs
Reduction of water production and increase of oil rates
Cyclic injection has been successfully applied in a number of
sandstone and carbonate oil fields in Russia, USA and China
Cyclic waterflooding application in Russia
Samara region
Volga-Ural

Tatar republic
Volga-Ural

West Siberia

1968-1984

1974-1984

1975-1984

Number of fields under

cyclic waterflooding

15

22

17

Additional oil production,

million tons

6.8

8.4

8.0

Reduced water
production, million m3

N/A

25.2

2.8

Reduced water injection,

million m3

N/A

N/A

4.6

Application period

Cyclic injection, Chinese experience

Fuyu oil field, Jilin province
1982-1990 about 1000 injectors and 1700 producers were involved in
the cyclic waterflloding.
The reservoir is shallow at the depth of 450-620 m.
Fractured sandstone reservoir.
Xinmu oil field, Jilin province
The reservoir is shallow at the depth of 650-700 m.
Low permeable, low pressure fractured sandstone reservoir.
Daquing field, Heilong Jiang province
Lio he oilfield (blocks Huan xi Ling and Hai Wai He), Liao ning province
From the discussion with Zhao Jincheng, reservoir engineer, CNOOC,
previously with CNPC (January 2004)

Presentation outline
Cyclic injection concept
Experience
Field case: Heidrun field potential
Process evaluations
Cyclic process model
SWORD cyclic evaluation

Heidrun field, Lower Tilje and re formations

200 m pay zone

Permeability contrast
from 20 to 4000 mD
3D model with fine
vertical grid (150 cells)
The evaluated area of
the field include two
pairs of wells

Averaged reservoir parameters

To evaluate cyclic injection parameters based on analytical solutions
the reservoir characteristics were averaged for two layer system with
high and low permeability zones
Reservoir characteristic
Oil compressibility, 10-4 bar-1

Value
1.257

Porosity (), fraction

0.3

Oil viscosity, cp

2.5

High permeability (k1), D

0.6

Averaged high permeability layer (K1)

0.968

Low permeability (k2), D

0.020

Averaged low permeability layer (K2)

0.032

Heterogeneity parameter, ()

0.031

Piezoconductivity (k/C), sm2/sec

5079

Cross flow under cycling

Crossflow
6,00

M2/Day

5,50
5,00
4,50
4,00
3,50
3,00
2,50
2,00
1,50
1,00
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

X/L

T=11.5

T=7.4

T=5.1

T=3.8

T=2.9

Maximum possible cross flow between low permeable and

high permeable zones vs. water front position

Injection cycle length

Time vs L (omega=2)
25,0

Time, days

20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

L, m
Piezoconductivity = 2,500

5 000

10 000

20 000

Half cycle time period vs. water front position at different

piezoconductivity values =k/C

Averaged grid parameters

Region

Name

Layers

Permx

Permy

Permz

Porosity,

DZ,

OOIP

mD

mD

mD

Frac.

10 M

re 2b

28-49

73.5

150

3.1

0.205

1.15

604

re 2a 3
Shoal

50-50

2092

2091

65.7

0.336

7.33

2,951

re 2a
bayfill

51-112

585

567

37.5

0.29

1.09

9,187

re 1b

113-146

Lower
Tilje/re

1-146

748

739

38.9

0.29

1.92

12,742

Highly heterogeneous reservoir with large permeability

contrasts vertically and horizontally

Simulation
model adjusted
to account for
pressure
pulsation and
capillary
pumping effects

Alternating waterflood patterns and cyclic injection

Total production vs injection period, 4 wells

10-years oil production, thousand M3

2680
2660
2640
2620
2600
2580
2560
2540
2520
0

20

40

60

80

100

Injection time, days

Cycle 2:1
w/o cyclic

Cycle 1:1
Cycle 1:2 shifted

Cycle 1:2

Cycle 1:3

Cycle 1:3 shifted

Cycle 1:1 shifted

Cumulative oil production for different 10 years cyclic

scenarios

120

Cyclic injection effect

Oil production increasing and water cut decreasing by cyclic injection, %

10

Percent of increasing/decreasing

0
2 wells, 5 years

2 wells, 10 years

4 wells, 5 years

4 wells, 10 years

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
Oil production increasing

Water production decreasing

Evaluation of cyclic injection at the Heidrun field indicate:

Oil production can be increased by 5-8% during 5-10 years
Water production reduced by 10-20%

Presentation outline
Cyclic injection concept
Experience
Field case: Heidrun field potential
Process evaluations
Cyclic process model
SWORD cyclic evaluation

DTI / ECL study vs. RF / CoP paper

RF / CoP

DTI / ECL

11 inj.
++
inj. &
& 11 prod.;
prod.;
0.7%
0.7% of
of STOIIP
STOIIP after
after 10
10 years
years

2D
2D model:
model:
++ 0.82%
0.82% of
of STOIIP
STOIIP

22 inj.
++
inj. &
& 22 prod.:
prod.:
1%
1% of
of STOIIP
STOIIP after
after 10
10 years
years

3D
3D model:
model:
++ 1.34%
1.34% of
of STOIIP
STOIIP

Ultimate
Ultimate recovery:
recovery: ca.
ca. 20%
20%

Ultimate
Ultimate recovery:
recovery: ca.
ca. 34%
34%

L.Tilje
L.Tilje // Aare,
Aare, 33 phase
phase model,
model,
Heidrun,
Heidrun, NCS
NCS

Generic
Generic 22 phase
phase model
model

DTI / ECL study vs. RF / CoP paper

High recovery with

normal water injection,
will mean less potential
for improvement by
Cyclic injection.

Improvement by
Cyclic injection

No conflict between
these two studies!

*
*

%RF

SPE
SPE 84193
84193 Oct
Oct 2003
2003 Smart
Smart Waterflooding
Waterflooding Tight
Tight
Fractured
Fractured Reservoirs
Reservoirs
Elina
Elina Arenas,
Arenas, Norbert
Norbert
Dolle,
Dolle, Shell
Shell
Tight fractured reservoir, horizontal injection and production
wells, inflow control wells and open hole parkers in the
injection well.
Horizontal injector is segmented by ICV into individually
controllable water injection zones.
Simulation results showed that the increase in recovery of up to
60% can be achieved.

Conclusions

Improved sweep, accelerated oil production and reduced water

production are the main positive effects of cyclic waterflooding

Improvement of waterflooding efficiency by systematic cyclic

injection can be achieved at virtually zero additional cost and
without complicated implementation procedures

Cyclic injection module in SWORD can be used for evaluation of

IOR potential and for design of the cyclic process for specific
reservoir conditions

Presentation outline
Cyclic injection concept
Experience
Field case: Heidrun field potential
Cyclic process model
SWORD cyclic evaluation

Analytical evaluation of cyclic water injection

Three main effects accounted for:
Gravity
Capillary
Compressibility

Gravity-caused cross flow in a heterogeneous reservoir with 2 layers (K1>K2)

Inter-communication of Sword routines related

to cyclic evaluation
Sword user interface (C++)

Analytical prediction module

(Fortran)
Dykstra-Parsons
block
Cyclic inject.
Cross-flow
block

Analytical evaluation of waterflooding potential

based on two different analytical solutions

Cyclic injection example:

two layers reservoir model
B

k1

1000

md

k2

10

md

h1

10

h2

100

p*

100

atm

0.2
0.2

g/cm3

14

days

0.8

cP

1000

1.E-04

u(x)-rate cond, cm/sec

u, cm/sec (press.
cond.)

2.50E-06

Ugrav, cm/sec
2.00E-06

=() gy

3.00E-06

1/atm

Velocity, cm/sec.

Cross-flow caused by gravity forces in

addition to the cross-flow caused by
compressibility effects through pulsing
injection

1.50E-06

1.00E-06

5.00E-07

0.00E+00
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Dimensionless distance

The gravitational cross-flow, will only take place if the denser phase
(water) overrides the less dense phase (oil).
The order of magnitude of the gravity-related cross-flow is comparable
with the cross-flow caused by compressibility-related effects.

Influence of the cyclic period on crossflow velocities

Pressure boundary

Rate boundary

Crossflow at pressure BC

Crossflow at rate BC

1.4E-05

1.4E-05

Velocity, cm/sec.

1.0E-05
8.0E-06
6.0E-06
4.0E-06

T=1
T=7
T=14
T=28
T=180
T=365

1.2E-05
Velocity, cm/sec.

T=1
T=7
T=14
T=28
T=180
T=365

1.2E-05

1.0E-05
8.0E-06
6.0E-06
4.0E-06
2.0E-06

2.0E-06

0.0E+00

0.0E+00
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Dimensionless distance

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Dimensionless distance

The cross-flow decreases with increasing pulse period (days).

Three layers reservoir

Layer

Horizontal
permeability,
kh
[md]

Anisotropy,
kv/kh

Porosity
[fraction]

Thickness
[m]

Initial
water
saturation
[fraction]

364,00

0,5

0,15

15,000

0,21

218,00

0,5

0,13

15,000

0,30

178,00

0,5

0,09

15,000

0,43

Moderate permeability contrast stratified reservoir

Effect of cyclic injection on produced

displacing fluid fraction (water cut)

Effect of cyclic injection on oil recovery

Kv/Kh sensitivity