You are on page 1of 58

Reservoir Management

Under Water Injection


A Worldwide Perspective
Dr. William M. Cobb
Dallas, Texas

2nd National Meeting on Secondary and


Assisted Oil Recovery
September 8–9, 2005
Malargue, Argentina
Current Oil Production in
South America (1000 B/D)
• Argentina 718
• Brazil 1538
• Colombia 514
• Ecuador 533
• Mexico 3252
• Venezuela 2640
• Total 9150
Argentina
Monthly Oil Rate vs Time
1,000
900
1,000 BO
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04

05

06
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Argentina
Year 2004 Production

BOPD % of Total

Primary 442,000 63.2


Production
Secondary 257,000 36.8
Production
Total 699,000 100.0
Argentina
Monthly Oil Rate vs Time
900
800
1,000 BO
700
Secondary Production
600
500
400
300
200
Primary Production
100
0
95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20
Argentina
Percent Primary & Secondary Production
90
80
Primary
70
60
50
Secondary
40
30
20
10
0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Argentina
Principle Productive Areas
Noroeste

Cuyana
.

Neuquina

Gulfo San Jorge

Austral
Argentina
Principle Production Areas
% of
Total BOPD Country Total
Austral 47,000 6.7
Cuyana 41,000 5.9
Gulfo San Jorge 284,000 40.6
Neuquina 310,000 44.4
Noroeste 17,000 2.4
699,000 100.0
Argentina
Year 2004 Production
BOPD Primary, % Secondary, %
Austral 47,000 86.6 13.4
Cuyana 41,000 61.7 38.3
Gulfo San Jorge 284,000 60.6 39.4
Neuquina 310,000 60.5 39.5
Noroeste 17,000 100.0 0.0
Total 699,000
Argentina
% of Total Secondary
70.0%

60.0%
Nequina
50.0%

40.0%

30.0% Gulfo San Jorge


20.0%
Cuyana
10.0%

0.0%
Austral
95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20
Argentina Oil and Injection Well
Count vs Time
25,000

20,000

15,000
Producing Wells
Injection Wells
10,000 Total Wells

5,000

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Argentina Injection Well Count and
Average Daily Injection per Well
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 Injection Wells
BWP Day/Well
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
00

00

01

01

02

02

03

03

04

04

05

05

06
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Argentina
Well Distribution on 1/1/05
% of % of P/I
Producing Total Injectors Total Ratio
Austral 289 1.7 40 0.8 7.2

Cuyana 938 5.5 246 4.8 3.8

Gulfo San Jorge 11,005 64.2 2,740 53.6 4.0

Neuquina 4,852 28.3 2,086 40.8 2.3

Noroeste 57 0.3 0 0.0 -

Total 17,141 100.0 5,112 100.0 3.4


1/
1/
19

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
93
1/
1/
19
94
1/
1/
19
95
1/
1/
19
96
1/
1/
19
97
1/
1/
19

Oil Price
98
1/
1/
19
99
1/
1/
20
00
1/
1/
20
01
1/
1/
20
02
1/
1/
20
03
1/
1/
20
04
Daily NYMEX Oil Price

1/
1/
20
05
1/
1/
Gas Price

20
06
0
5
10
15
20
Common Denominators for
Management of Waterfloods on
a Worldwide Basis
Why Inject Water?
A. Maintain Reservoir Pressure –
Pressure Maintenance
B. Increase Reservoir Pressure –
Waterflooding
C. Supplement Natural Water Influx

But . . .
A, B & C are Displacement Processes and the
Goal is to Displace Oil to a Production Well
Worldwide Reminders When Managing
Waterflood Activities

 Pressure Depletion Stops

 Volumetric Sweep

 Net Pay Cutoffs

 Decline Curve Analysis

 WOR Analysis

 Waterflood Quarterback

 Keep the Ax Sharp


What are the Key Factors that Drive the
Outcome of a Water Injection Project?

Np ≈ N*EA*EV*ED
Np = Cumulative Waterflood Recovery, BBL.
N = Oil in Place at Start of Injection, BBL.
EA = Areal Sweep Efficiency, Fraction
EV = Vertical Sweep Efficiency, Fraction
ED = Displacement Efficiency, Fraction
Waterflood Recovery Factor
Np RF  E A * EV * ED
 RF 
 
N EVOL
EA = f (Mobility Ratio, Pattern, Directional
Permeability, Pressure Distribution,
Cumulative Injection & Operations)
EV = f (Rock Property variation between
different flow units)
EVOL = Volumetric Sweep of the Reservoir by
Injected Water
ED = f (Primary Depletion, Krw & Kro, μo & μw)
Traditional Waterflood Volumetric
Sweep Efficiency Calculation

 Uses Net Cumulative Water Injected (Wi-Wp)


 Does not Account for Injection losses out of
zone
 Does not Account for Natural Water Influx
Compute Volumetric Sweep Based
on Oil Production Data
Oil in place at start of waterflooding = Produced oil since the start of injection
+ Oil currently in reservoir

Where: V p So
Oil in place at start of waterflood = , STBO
Bo

Produced oil since the start of injection = N p ,STBO

Oil currently in reservoir = Oil in water bank + oil in oil bank


V p Evw (1.0  Sw )
Oil in water bank = ,STBO
Bo

V p (1.0  Evw )(1.0  S wc )


Oil in oil bank = ,STBO
Bo
Volumetric Sweep Based on Oil
Production Data

N p Bo
 1.0  So  S wc
Vp
Evw 
S w  S wc

SPE-38902
Example
Waterflood Statistics
Conditions at Start of Waterflood
Connate Water Saturation = 22 percent
Gas Saturation = 8 percent
Oil Saturation = 70 percent
Residual Oil Saturation = 31 percent
Oil Viscosity = 0.3
centipoise
Oil Formation Volume Factor = 1.57
RB/STB
Example (con’t.)
Total Unit
Pore Volume = 350,000
MB
Cumulative Oil Production Since Start of = 40,000
Injection MSTB
Current Volumetric Sweep Efficiency = 0.552
Remaining Oil Production under Current = 5,000 MB
Operations
Estimated Waterflood Ultimate Recovery = 45,000
MSTB
Ultimate Volumetric Sweep Efficiency = 0.600
under Current Operations
Volumetric Sweep Efficiency for Waterflood Project
(Pore Volume Based on 6.0% Porosity Cutoff)

26.0 MMSTB
Evw  0.85
0.8

0.6

Evw
0.4

Cumulative Oil Production = 40.0 MMSTB


Remaining Oil Production = 5.0 MMSTB
Estimated Ultimate Recovery = 45.0 MMSTB
0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Production Since Start of Waterflood, Np, MMSTB
Volumetric Sweep Efficiency for Waterflood Project
(Pore Volume Based on 6.0% and 10.0% Porosity Cutoff)

1
26.0 MMSTB

8.4
Evw  0.85 MMSTB
0.8

0.6
10% Porosity Cutoff
Evw
6% Porosity Cutoff
0.4

Cumulative Oil Production = 40.0 MMSTB


Remaining Oil Production = 5.0 MMSTB
Estimated Ultimate Recovery = 45.0 MMSTB
0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Production Since Start of Waterflood, Np, MMST B


What’s the Secret for
Maximizing EA and EV (and EVOL)?
IT’S THE INJECTION WELL!
– Properly Locate the Injection Well
– Develop an Appropriate Pattern!
– Inject Water where You Find the Oil!
– Measure and Manage Injection Profiles
– Keep Fluid Levels in a Pumped Off Condition
– Balance Injection and Withdrawals
Remember the Quarterback!
SHIFTING
GEARS
Net Pay
 Static OOIP
 Dynamic OOIP
 Drive Mechanism
 Controlled by Cutoffs
 Permeability Distribution between Flow Units
(Dykstra-Parson Coefficient)
 Oil/Water Relative Permeability
 Mobility Ratio (Oil and Water Viscosity)
 Fluid Saturations at Start of Injection (So, Sg, Swc)
 Water Cut Economic Limit
Permeability Cutoff Using the
Watercut Method at a 95 Percent
Watercut Economic Limit
80 Acre Pattern
k50  20md
Dykstra-Parsons, V Sg = 0% Sg = 10%
0.6 0.24 1.10
0.7 0.71 3.30
0.8 1.20 5.60

SPE-48952
CHANGING
HORSES
Decline Curve Analysis

Assume
Gas Fillup has been Achieved (Reservoir contains oil
and water
Reservoir Pressure is Approximately Constant (Bo is
constant)
Steady State Flow Prevails (Approximately)

Conclusion
Water Injection = Liquid Production (at Reservoir
Conditions)
Decline Curve Analysis

Fact:
iw * Einj * fo iw * Einj * (1  f w )
qo  
Bo Bo

iw * Einj * f w
qw 
Bw
Conculsion:
Oil and Water Production Rates are directly related to
injection rates. Therefore, DCA of qo vs t or qo vs Np
must be evaluated only after giving consideration to
historical and projected water injection rates.
Latin American Waterflood

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500
BOPD

2,000 BOPD

1,500

1,000

500

0
10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000
Cum. Oil - MBO
Latin American Waterflood

4,000 20

3,500

3,000 15

Water Injection - MBWPD


2,500
BOPD

BOPD
2,000 10
MBWiPD

1,500

1,000 5

500

0 0
10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000
Cum. Oil - MBO
Latin American Waterflood

4,000 20

3,500

3,000 15

Water Injection - MBWPD


2,500
BOPD

BOPD
2,000 10
MBWiPD

1,500

1,000 5

500

0 0
10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000
Cum. Oil - MBO
WOR is Independent of Injection Rate
qw
WOR 
q0
iw * Einj * f w
WOR 
iw * Einj * (1  f w )
fw
WOR 
(1  f w )
fw Bo
(WOR ) STD .COND .  *
(1  f w ) Bw
Conclusion:
WOR is independent of injection rate
WOR should be applied to individual wells and not
field
WOR should be applied using values greater than 2.0
Latin American Waterflood

100
Producing WOR

10 WOR

1
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Cum. Oil - MBO
Keep Life Simple
Production Centered 5-Spot Pattern
N-Well

80 Acres

W-Well E-Well
C-Well

S-Well
MONUMENT BUTTE UNIT-MB FED 10-35 - Production
North American Waterflood – Pattern 35-10
8.0 32000
Oil
Wtr
Wtr Inj
7.0 GOR 28000

6.0 24000
MBBL/MONTH

5.0 20000

GOR, SCF/BO
4.0 16000

3.0 12000

2.0 8000

1.0 4000

0.0 0
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
MONUMENT BUTTE UNIT-MB FED 10-35 - Oil Rate vs. Cumulative Oil
North American Waterflood – Pattern 35-10
7.0

6.0

5.0
Oil Rate, MBO/Month

4.0

3.0

2.0

S-i
1.0 E-i
N-i

W-i
0.0
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0

Cumulative Oil, MBO


MONUMENT BUTTE
North UNIT-MB
American FED 10-35
Waterflood – Pattern
- WOR vs Cumulative Oil
35-10
10.0
WOR

1.0

0.1
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0
Cumulative Oil, MBO
A Friendly Reminder
Waterflood Operations

• Cartesian Plots of Oil Rate versus Cumulative


Oil Production Should Be Prepared on A Well
Basis

• Semi-log Plots of WOR versus Cumulative Oil


Production Should Be Prepared on A Well basis

• Preparation of the Above Two Plots For The


Entire Field Gives an Average Result Which May
be Optimistic or Pessimistic
Have there been Recent Developments
in Waterflooding Technology??
• NO !
& YES ! ? ? ? ?
BUT . . .
• Improved application of old principles
leads to better recovery
What Are the Key Elements
of a Successful Waterflood?
• High Moveable Oil Saturation
• Moderate to Low Oil Viscosity
• Favorable Relative Permeability
• Low Permeability Variation
• Symmetrical Patterns
• Ability to Inject Large Volumes of Water
• Ability to Lift Large Volumes of Produced Water
• Pumped Off Producing Wells
What are the Pitfalls of
Waterflooding Practices?
• Failure to keep producing wells in pumped off
condition
• Failure to clearly distinguish between Static OOIP
and Dynamic OOIP (Primary vs Secondary)
• Failure to collect sufficient quantity and quality of
reservoir data
• Failure to timely convert oil wells to injection wells
• Failure to monitor injection water quality
• Failure to keep the Ax sharp
Summary of
New Waterflood Paradigms
• Remember the Quarterback
(The Injector)

• Keep the End in Mind


(Maximize Volumetric Sweep)

• Keep the Ax Sharp


(SPE meetings, SPE-TIGS, and SPE.org
provide great opportunities to sharpen the mind!)
Pretty Please with Sugar!

Keep Life Simple


Oil (BOPD); Water (BWPD); Gas (MCFPD); WC%
1/
1/

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
80
1/
1/
81
1/
1/
82
1/
1/
83
1/
1/
84
1/
1/
85
1/
1/
86
1/
1/
87
1/
1/
88
1/
1/
89

BOPD
1/
Field

1/
90
1/
1/
91

BWPD
1/
1/
92
1/
1/
93
1/

MCFPD
1/
94
1/
1/
95
1/
1/

WCUT
96
One Well Field - Latin America

1/
1/
97
1/
1/
GOR
98
Analysis – Latin America

1/
1/
99
1/
1/
00
1/
1/
01
1/
1/
02
1/
1/
03
1/
1/
04
1/
1/
05
0
1

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4

GOR
Oil Production, BOPD
1/
1/

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
80

1/
1/
82

1/
1/
84

1/
1/
86

1/
1/
88

1/
1/
90

1/
1/
92

BOPD
1/
1/
94

1/
1/
96
One Well Field - Latin America
Field Analysis – Latin America

1/
1/
98

1/
1/
00

1/
1/
02

1/
1/
04
Water Production, BPD
1/
1/

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
80

1/
1/
82

1/
1/
84

1/
1/
86

1/
One

1/
88
Field
Well

1/
1/
90
Analysis

1/
1/
92
Field - –Latin

1/

BWPD
1/
Latin

94

1/
1/
96
America
America

1/
1/
98

1/
1/
00

1/
1/
02

1/
1/
04
Water Production, BPD
1/
1/

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
80

1/
1/
82

1/
1/
84

1/
1/
86

1/
One

1/
88
Field
Well

1/
1/

BOPD
90
Analysis

1/
1/
92
Field - –Latin

1/

BWPD
1/
Latin

94

1/
1/
96
America
America

BWPD 1/
1/
98

1/
1/
00

1/
1/
02

1/
1/
04
GOR, MSCF/BO
1/
1/

0.5
1.5

0
1
80 2

1/
1/
82

1/
1/
84

1/
1/
86

1/
1/
One

88

1/
FieldWell

1/
90

1/
Analysis

1/
92

GOR
1/
1/
Field -–Latin

94

1/
1/
96
LatinAmerica

1/
America

1/
98

1/
1/
00

1/
1/
02

1/
1/
04
Oil Production, BOPD
1/
1/

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
80

1/
1/
82

1/
1/
84

1/
1/
86

1/
1/
88
One
Field

1/
1/
90
Well

BOPD
1/
1/
92
Analysis

1/
1/
94
Field - –Latin
Latin

1/
1/

GOR
96

1/
1/
America

98
America

1/
1/
00

1/
1/
02

1/
1/
04
0
1
2

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8

GOR, MSCF/BO
Oil Production, BOPD
1/
1/

1
10
100
80
1/
1/
82
1/
1/
84
1/
1/
86
1/
1/
88
1/
1/
90
1/
1/
92
1/
1/
One

94
1/
Field

1/
96
Well

1/
1/
98
1/
1/
00
Analysis

1/
1/
02
1/

BOPD
1/
04
Field - –Latin

1/
1/
Latin

06
1/
1/
08
1/
1/
America

10
1/
America

1/
12
1/
1/
14
1/
1/
16
1/
1/
18
1/
1/
20
1/
1/
22
1/
1/
24
One Well
Field Field - –Latin
Analysis LatinAmerica
America

100

90

80
Oil Production, BOPD

70

60

50

40 EUR @ 10 BOPD = 625MBO


30

20

10

0
0

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80
Cum Oil - MBO
Reservoir Management
Under Water Injection
A Worldwide Perspective
Dr. William M. Cobb
Dallas, Texas

2nd National Meeting on Secondary and


Assisted Oil Recovery
September 8–9, 2005
Malargue, Argentina