[PDF]Binary Screening - Rackcdn.comc196108.r8.cf1.rackcdn.com/maggiethompson.pdfCachedâ¢Analytical and Numerical Tool/s. â¢Systematic procedure. â¢...
1 downloads
152 Views
3MB Size
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
The Maestro Methodology Provides an efficient framework for the selection and ranking of candidate fields for a range of enhanced oil recovery processes. Analytical and Numerical Tool/s Systematic procedure EOR expertise Field knowledge and expertise
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Maestro Development Developed by Subsurface group at Winfrith Dorset (Currently the Specialist Reservoir Engineering Group of RPS) 1970s 1990s Extensive research into EOR projects, theoretical and experimental 1989 Development of METEOR I DTI/NPD 1989 1992 EOR Screening of all UKCS oil fields 100% success rate in identifying successful UKCS gas injection projects 1996 MAESTRO developed to enable commercial projects to be undertaken 2000 2002 MAESTRO re-development Performance Indicators Rapid Simulation 2010 2011 Review of methodology in light of new EOR chemicals / processes. Collaboration with BP Institute, Cambridge.
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Typical Project Objectives Investigate potential for enhanced recovery using gas, chemical or thermal methods Rank performance of different displacement processes / reservoirs Obtain an indication of economic viability First pass optimisation studies of best performing processes prior to more detailed modelling
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
EOR Screening Methodology Field Portfolio
Binary Screening Analytical Screening
Effort / Res.
Reservoirs
Minutes
1000
Hours 100 Days
Screening Simulations EOR Project
Detailed Appraisal
10 Weeks Months
1
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
EOR Projects (Oil & Gas Journal) Succ. 10000
cp OilViscosity, Viscosity, cp
Thermal 1000
100
CO2 misc CO2 immisc
Chemical
HC misc HC immisc N2 misc N2 immisc Polymer Comb
10
Steam
Gas 1 0
50
100
150
200
250
0.1
Reservoir Temperature, °F
300
350
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
EOR Projects (Oil & Gas Journal) ALL
60
Gravity, API Oil Gravity, API
50
40
CO2 misc CO2 immisc HC misc HC immisc N2 misc N2 immisc
Gas
30
Polymer Comb Steam
20
Chemical 10
Thermal 0 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Reservoir Depth, feet
14000
16000
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
EOR Projects (Oil & Gas Journal) ALL
60
Gravity, API Oil Gravity, API
50
40
CO2 misc CO2 immisc HC misc HC immisc N2 misc N2 immisc
Gas
30
Polymer Comb Steam
20
10
0 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Reservoir Depth, feet
14000
16000
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Binary Screening Criteria Developments
Existing technology Emerging technology
1.2
1
0.8
Score
Ongoing developments mean that constraints are being relaxed
0.4
0.2
PASS
Existing Technology
Emerging Technology
0
Binary screening switches abruptly from PASS to FAIL at limits
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
350
400
Temperature (F)
1.2
1
0.8
Score
Fuzzy screening criteria gives a PASS score which varies smoothly from 0 to 1
PASS 0.6
PASS
PASS
Existing Technology
Emerging Technology
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0
50
100
150
200
250
Temperature (F)
300
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
EOR Projects (Oil & Gas Journal) ALL
60
Gravity, API Oil Gravity, API
50
40
CO2 misc CO2 immisc HC misc HC immisc N2 misc N2 immisc
Gas
30
Polymer Comb Steam
20
10
0 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Reservoir Depth, feet
14000
16000
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
EOR Screening Methodology Field Portfolio
EOR Project
Binary Screening
Maestro
Analytical Screening
Performance Indicators
Screening Simulations
Rapid Simulation
Detailed Appraisal
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Analytical Screening
Microscopic Displacement
Key performance indicators Stones, Cranes, Dietz etc
Displacement Efficiency Microscopic displacement
Saturation
Viscous/gravity ratios
Buckley-Leverett theory MMP correlations
Volumetric sweep Areal sweep Vertical sweep Sweepable volume
Distance
Volumetric Sweep
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Assessing Viability Stability Estimated incremental recovery (cf waterflood) Displacement Efficiencies combine to estimate Incremental Recovery
Performance Indicators Economic Indicators Sensitivity to uncertainty
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
1.000 0.900 Enrichment factor
0.800 0.700 0.600 0.500
EF
0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.0
1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0
Equivalent Gas Requirement (Mscf/stb) at different gas price ratios
Optimisation and Economic Indicators - Miscible Gas Injection Economic Indicators calculated ie gas requirements per incremental barrel Optimisation of gas processes 3.500 Price ratio
3.000 2.500
1 1.5
2.000
2 1.500
3
1.000
4
0.500 0.000 0.0
P (psia)
Higher enrichment at lower pressures So operate at lower pressure / higher enrichment Operational policy is independent of NGL price.
1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 P (psia)
Less gas required at lower pressures
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Matching Model to Expected Waterflood Behaviour Waterflood recovery factor estimate available from simulation model / forecasts Analytical model should be calibrated to waterflood estimate Recovery Factor Contours Volumetric Sweep Efficiency
1.0 0.9 0.8
0.8 0.7
0.6
0.6 0.5
0.4
0.4 0.3 0.2
0.2
0.1 0.0 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Microscopic Displacement Efficiency
1.0
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Matching EOR Process to Remaining Oil Recovery Factor Contours Volumetric Sweep Efficiency
1.0 0.9 0.8
0.8 0.7
0.6
0.6 0.5 0.4
0.4
0.3 0.2
0.2
0.1 0.0 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Microscopic Displacement Efficiency
1.0
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
EOR Screening Methodology Field Portfolio
EOR Project
Binary Screening
Maestro
Analytical Screening
Performance Indicators
Screening Simulations
Rapid Simulation
Detailed Appraisal
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Assess and Quantify Viability Include lateral and vertical heterogeneity Include new well technologies Generate production and injection profiles (Input to economics) Sensitivities to identify/confirm critical data First pass optimisation
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Screening Simulation Model(s)
Grid Refinement (e.g. 3 x 3 x 1 compared with full field model)
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Example Permeability Profiles Permeability (md)
Permeability (md) 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
1000
0
2000
100
Permeability (md)
Permeability (md)
200
0
20
0
40
0
0
0
20
20
20
40 60
40 60
40 60
80 80
80 100
100 120
120 140
100 120
140
160
140
160
180
160
10
20
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Viability of WAG Displacements Field 1
Field 3
Comment
Binary Screening
Score = 1
Score = 1
Does not consider vertical heterogeneity
Analytical Screening
Segregation of gas / water
Segregation of gas / water
Takes no account of the position of the high permeability layers
Simulation Screening
Total override
Partial override
Necessary
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Sensitivity of Miscible CO2 WAG to Reservoir Properties High heterogeneity (VDP 0.8) and high vertical permeability
Moderate heterogeneity (VDP 0.6) and moderate vertical permeability
Gas Saturation
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Sensitivity of WAG to Injection Gas Hydrocarbon gas
CO2
Gas Saturation
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
EOR Screening Methodology Field Portfolio
Binary Screening Analytical Screening Screening Simulations
EOR Project
Detailed Appraisal
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
EOR Screening Methodology Field Portfolio
Binary Screening Analytical Screening Screening Simulations
EOR Project
Detailed Appraisal
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Developing Analytical/Simulation Screening Chemical flooding (Surfactant/Polymer) Wider range of applicability ( ie new chemicals stable at more extreme conditions) eg high temperatures, low permeability, high viscosity, high salinity New flow mechanisms, eg Bright water, Low molecular weight polymers
New processes (ASP, Foams, low salinity waterflood) WAG Improving accuracy of analytical methods Effect of heterogeneity (High/Low K layers / Baffles)
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Hele-Shaw Cell Experiments BP Institute Cambridge
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Miscible Flood with High Permeability Streak HM0014 Hele-Shaw Cell
Screening Simulation
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Miscible Flood with High Permeability Streak HM0014 Hele-Shaw Cell
Screening Simulation
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Miscible Flood with High Permeability Streak HM0014 Hele-Shaw Cell
Screening Simulation
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Miscible Flood with High Permeability Streak HM0014 Hele-Shaw Cell
Screening Simulation
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Miscible Flood with High Permeability Streak HM0014 Hele-Shaw Cell
Screening Simulation
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Summary Maestro is an established methodology providing an efficient framework for selection and ranking of candidate fields for EOR processes by focusing on most promising processes at an early stage The methodology continues to be relevant for todays EOR screening requirements New chemicals and processes require developments to the methodology Research ongoing to improve analytical methods for WAG processes
Thank You
Developing EOR Screening Methodologies
Modelling Flow across Baffles Hele Shaw experiment
Flux Pascals triangle
