Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Best Practices
G.F. Teletzke, SPE, R.C. Wattenbarger, SPE, and J.R. Wilkinson, SPE, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
Summary
Enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) implementation is complex, and
successful applications need to be tailored to each specific reservoir. Therefore, a systematic staged evaluation and development
process is required to screen, evaluate, pilot test, and apply EOR
processes for particular applications. Pilot testing can play a key
role in this process. Before field testing, pilot objectives need to
be clearly defined and well spacing, pattern configuration, and
injectant volumes determined.
This paper outlines a staged approach to EOR evaluation and
focuses specifically on pilot testing best practices. These best
practices were derived from ExxonMobils extensive piloting
experience, which includes more than 50 field pilot tests covering the full range of EOR processes. Topics covered include: (1)
determining whether a pilot is needed and defining pilot objectives, (2) considerations for successful pilot design, (3) types
of pilots and their advantages and disadvantages, (4) tools and
techniques for assessment of key reservoir mechanisms, and (5)
minimizing uncertainty in pilot interpretation. Key issues that are
often addressed by pilots are discussed, including areal sweep
and conformance, gravity override, viscous fingering, and loss of
mobility control. Also included are aspects of instrumentation and
measurements in pilot injection, production, and monitoring wells.
Several ExxonMobil piloting examples are used to illustrate the
best practices, including a single-well injectivity test, an unconfined pilot with observation wells, a small-scale confined pilot, and
a large-scale multipattern pilot.
Staged Process for EOR Project Evaluation
and Development
The complexity and cost of EOR requires a disciplined work
process for project evaluation, design, and implementation. To put
pilot testing best practices in perspective, Fig. 1 outlines a staged
workflow that ExxonMobil has used for evaluation and design of
EOR projects. The role of field tests and pilots in this process is
highlighted in the yellow box.
EOR evaluation starts with screening-level data collection,
candidate process selection, injectant source identification, and
screening economics. If these are favorable, design and implementation of an EOR project then requires in-depth analysis of
the most promising processes. In addition to standard laboratory
tests, specialized fluid characterization and reservoir-conditions
coreflood tests using in-situ fluids and a range of injectants are
performed to customize a process for each reservoir. Reservoir
characterization studies are conducted concurrently to identify
the key geologic controls on field-scale sweep efficiency. The
laboratory experiments and reservoir characterization studies are
then used as input to geologic and dynamic reservoir-simulation
modeling of the process at various scales to evaluate options, define
a preferred process design, and provide input to screening-level
development and facilities planning. If anticipated rates, recoveries, and economics are favorable, pilot testing in the target field is
often undertaken to resolve uncertainties and fine tune operational
and execution details. Additional laboratory, reservoir characteriza-
Lab Data
Reservoir Simulation
Pilot Testing
Surveillance
Stakeholder review/approvals
Process Untested
Reservoir Complex
or not Well Understood
Low Economic/
Injectant Supply Risk
Significant Economic/
Injectant Supply Risk
Small-Scale Pilot
Commercial Application
Commercial Application
Nonproducing Pilots. The simplest design is a single-well injectivity test to determine the ease at which gas can be injected into the
formation and to evaluate injectivity losses resulting from WAG
processes. By adding an observation well, the vertical sweep and the
local displacement efficiency of the gas at the observer location can
be determined. Addition of a second observer permits the assessment
of the vertical sweep over the distance separating the two observers.
The locations of the observation wells will need to account for both
reservoir heterogeneities and near-well pressure gradients (drift) that
may result in the injected fluids moving away from rather than toward
the observation wells. Because gas injectants are frequently less dense
than the in situ oil, observation wells will provide valuable information
on gravity override that may lead to poor sweep efficiency.
One key to successful gasflooding processes is achieving high
volumetric sweep efficiency. Placement of multiple observers
around the injector permits an assessment of not only the vertical
sweep efficiency at the injectors but also the areal sweep efficiency.
The product of the vertical and areal sweep efficiencies gives an
estimate of the volumetric sweep efficiency for the pattern.
Fig. 4 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of nonproducing pilots. This type of pilot may be useful for providing quick
and inexpensive estimates of injectivity and vertical sweep efficiency, but it does not provide quantitative data on overall volumetric sweep efficiency and ultimate recovery efficiency. In addition,
it provides no operational experience with handling and recycling
produced fluids and is extremely sensitive to fluid drift.
Producing Pilots. Pilots that incorporate production wells, otherwise known as oil-in-the-tank pilots, provide the most direct data
on oil recovery, fluid transport through the reservoir, and pressure
drop between injectors and producers. Important factors to consider when designing and interpreting producing pilots include:
Drift: Is the pattern acting as a truly confined flow system?
Balance: Are the relative rates of injectors and producers
allocated to maximize areal sweep efficiency in the pilot area?
Isolation: Is the zone taking injection the only zone that is
producing?
The cost of running a pilot that is truly confined, balanced,
and isolated may be considerable because offset production may
145
Determine:
Determine: Injectivity
Determine:
Injectivity
Vertical sweep at observers
Displacement efficiency at observers
Vertical sweep vs. distance
Reservoir description between
injection and observation wells
Injectivity
Vertical sweep at observer
Displacement efficiency at observer
Reservoir description between injection
and observation well
Determine:
Injectivity
Vertical sweep at observer
Displacement efficiency at observers
Areal sweep
Reservoir description between
injection and observation wells
Non-Producing Pilots
Advantages
Disadvantages
Low cost
No oil in tank
Estimate of injectivity
Fast results
Advantages
Disadvantages
Estimate of injectivity
Low cost
Rough estimates of mobility control,
oil mobilization, chemical retention
Fast results
147
Advantages
Disadvantages
A second problem is that gas can channel through high-permeability thief zones, leading to poorer-than-expected sweep
efficiency. Channeling is controlled by permeability distribution.
Gas channeling can be evaluated in the design phase by conducting
thorough geological and reservoir description studies along with
small-scale reservoir simulation studies that properly account for
the governing geologic heterogeneities. Also, the sweep experienced in a prior waterflood will provide a strong indication of
the degree of channeling to be expected in a gas injection project.
Thus, an accurate reservoir description combined with history
matching prior waterflood performance can help evaluate the
potential for channeling in the gasflood.
The final potential problem is that gas, which is usually less
dense than oil or water, can gravity override or flow to the top of
Advantages
Disadvantages
Very expensive
Extensive evaluation time
Confirmed oil-in-the-tank
Best data for calibrating simulators
Easiest to scale-up to commercial
performance
Commercial-scale operating
experience and cost data
Fig. 8Advantages and disadvantages of large-scale, multipattern pilots.
148
Evaluation of Problem
Injectivity
Potential Problem
Water
Gas
Water
Lab measurements
Pilot injectivity tests
Geological, reservoir
description studies
Gas
Geological, reservoir
description studies
Gas
Injectivity
Injectivity index
Tools/Techniques
Injection rates
Bottomhole pressure
Flow profiles
Fall-off tests
Step-rate tests
Gravity override
Vertical permeability
Core data
Vertical pulse tests
Cross-layer pulse tests
Channeling/viscous fingering/loss of
mobility control
Areal sweep/conformance
Interwell tracers
Sample producers
Pressure surveys
149
and the effective pattern vertical permeability are needed. Timelapse logging, coring behind the flood front, and either vertical
or cross-layer pulse tests have been used to provide this information. Cased-hole logging tools used for time-lapse logging include
nuclear logs (steel and nonmetallic casing) for gas saturation and
total porosity and induction logs (nonmetallic casing) for water
saturation. Fitz and Ganapathy (1993) provide an example of quantitative monitoring of fluid saturation changes during a gas injection
EOR project. Post-flood core wells have been used to measure vertical conformance and remaining oil saturation. In some cases, spot
fluid samples for composition have been collected at observation
wells, but usually after critical log data have been obtained.
Channeling and loss of mobility control or viscous fingering are
the other key mechanisms affecting sweep efficiency. In addition
to assessing the change in oil saturation behind the flood front,
the gas/oil ratio and water-cut behavior of producers over time,
interwell tracers (radioactive or chemical) and pressure surveys are
commonly used to estimate the degree of channeling and viscous
fingering. Careful and regular sampling of produced fluids, flowing
and static bottomhole pressure surveys, and time-lapse logging are
available techniques for acquiring such data.
Finally, flood conformance or areal sweep is needed to complement the channeling and gravity override data and determine the
volumetric sweep efficiency within the pattern. Swept pore volume
can be determined by carefully tracking the movement and breakthrough of tracers at production wells and keeping accurate records
of oil, water, and gas production
Pilot Interpretation
Successful pilot interpretation requires advance planning. It is
essential that a detailed reservoir simulation model of the pilot
area (with appropriate boundary conditions) be built in advance to
optimize the pilot design and monitoring program, anticipate data
needed for history matching the pilot, enable timely interpretation
of pilot, and assess the need for selective use of additional observation wells and post-flood coring. The geology of the pilot area and
a good understanding of the target oil distribution are critical inputs
to the simulation model. Pilot wells should be cored and logged,
if at all possible. Core, log, and pressure transient data should be
integrated into a consistent reservoir description.
The following pilot design and operational best practices help
to minimize uncertainties in test interpretation and facilitate history
matching of pilot results:
Production facilities, well completions, tubulars, and artificial
lift should be representative of the anticipated commercial-scale
development.
Several good baseline logs and possibly a single-well tracer
test should be run in wells before the pilot begins and at regular
time intervals to verify reproducibility of the log measurements and
ensure accurate determination of saturation changes during timelapse logging at observation wells. Having logging tools dedicated
to the project also helps to ensure reproducibility.
An adequate period of steady baseline injection and production should be achieved before initiating the EOR process. This
will reduce uncertainty in interpretation of injectivity, saturation
changes, and incremental oil production.
Fluid drift should be minimized so that the pilot area acts as
a truly confined system. This can be accomplished by regulating
rates in the surrounding patterns or locating the pilot in an area
without strong pressure gradients.
The relative rates of injectors and producers should be
allocated to maintain pattern balance and maximize areal sweep
efficiency in the pilot area.
Steady and uninterrupted injection and production rates
should be maintained. This is important to maintain the desired
VGR, maintain pattern balance, and minimize the effects of external influences.
Injection and production zones should be isolated so that only
the targeted production zone is taking injection.
An adequate volume of EOR fluid should be injected to
reduce uncertainty in interpretation of sweep efficiency, satura150
Date
Type Pilot
Process
References
Borregos
196566
5-spot
Surfactant
Loudon
196970
5-spot
Surfactant
Loudon
198081
5-spot
Surfactant
Loudon
198283
5-spot
Surfactant
Loudon
198286
40-acre multipattern
Surfactant
Loudon
198286
80-acre multipattern
Surfactant
198283
Judy Creek A
1987
Nonproducing
Co2 miscible
Unconfined pattern
Hydrocarbon miscible
Redwater
198889
Multipattern
Hydrocarbon miscible
Slaughter
199192
Multipattern
Co2 foam
Greater Aneth
199294
Multipattern
Co2 foam
Single patten
Multipattern
Polymer gel
Norman Wells
20012005
198690
1964
Multipattern
1972
Multipattern
Buckles (1979)
1975
Multipattern
Buckles (1979)
2002
Multipattern
Laser
198687
Multipattern
Steam foam
South Belridge
South Belridge (Diatomite)
199296
Multipattern
Steam drive
Esperson Dome
198487
Single pattern
In-situ combustion
Celtic
199699
SAGD
Saltuklaroglu et al.
(2000)
Celtic
19972001
SAGD
Saltuklaroglu et al.
(2000)
Celtic
20022005
5-spot
SSE
Kaminsky and
Wattenbarger (2008)
well (Georgi et al. 1991). The observation well was placed within
the expected WAG commingled zone on the basis of prepilot reservoir simulation modeling. The location was chosen to confirm the
expected size and shape of the WAG commingled zone (Fig. 11).
Production and injection profile logs for monitoring changes
in fluid production rates and fluid entry horizons. These consisted
of a suite of spinner, density, capacitance, and temperature tools.
Water and solvent tracer for defining the areal distribution of
injected water and gas. A gas-phase tracer (sulfur hexafluoride)
and liquid phase tracer (tritiated toluene) were used to monitor
fluid movement.
Conclusions of the pilot, on the basis of an integrated interpretation of the monitoring data, were that (1) a definite oil bank was
formed by the miscible process, (2) gravity override was consistent
with the simulation model predictions, and (3) a reduction in pattern size would improve sweep efficiency and ultimate oil recovery.
The calibrated simulation model was used to define an optimized
injection strategy comprising (1) injection of an initial high-rate
bank of the enriched gas before WAG injection, (2) tapering the
WAG ratio, (3) proper timing of lean chase gas injection, and (4)
tailoring of WAG cycle length and bank size to pattern geology.
Small-Scale Confined Pilot. The initial pilot of the solids-stabilized emulsion (SSE) heavy-oil-recovery process developed by
151
400 m
2-8
110 m
Injector
4-9
Observation well
R 11
T 64
R 10
Sweep
pilot
16-5
T 65
Reef edge
Fig. 10Judy Creek vertical sweep pilot configuration.
Injector
Observation
well
Producer
modeling, and reservoir simulation. Initial reservoir modeling studies were conducted before the pilot to confirm that the chosen well
spacing and 3-year piloting period would be sufficient to gather necessary injection, production, and observation-well data to meet pilot
objectives. Falloff tests were conducted periodically to characterize
the pilot area further and to evaluate changes in well injectivity.
The reservoir surveillance program included: close monitoring of injection and production rates, continuous measurement
of bottomhole pressures and temperatures, producer sampling
and analysis, tracers, and observation well logging. Fiber-optic
sensors were placed in each of the observation wells to measure
pressure response. Temperature logs were run in the observation
wells on a routine basis to help detect the arrival of the slightly
heated injected fluid. Carbon/oxygen and induction logs were run
less frequently to detect changes in fluid saturation. Water-phase
and injector-specific oil-phase tracers were added to the injected
fluid to help track the movement of the injected fluids and to aid
in the determination of in situ stability. Regular sampling and an
in-line viscometer were used to control the quality of the injectant.
These quality controls were helpful in identifying and correcting
initial startup problems with injectant preparation. At the end of
the 3-year pilot, a post-flood well was drilled to take core from
the swept region of the flood. The ability to generate and inject
solids-stabilized emulsion in the field was demonstrated early on
in the pilot. Integrated analysis of the post-flood core-well results
and extensive surveillance data allowed estimation of the in situ
24
Gas flowing zone
(including dispersion)
R3
Water flowing
zone
R2
16
Commingled
zone
12
PROD
Log
interpreted
base of
4 commingled
zone
0
100
200
35
ft
45
ft
25
ft
OBS2 OBS1
INJ4
Predicted
commingled
zone
dimension
INJ2
R1
OBS3
0
300
40
ft
400
injection well
production well
observation well
INJ1
20
150 ft
INJ3
675
0.5
12
600
10
15
20
11
525
0.45
0.4
0.35
20
450
0.3
375
0.25
300
0.2
225
0.15
150
0.1
75
Cycle 6
Cycle 7
-0
ar
Cycle OSR
750
0.05
0
04
03
02
01
00
04
03
02
01
gggggbbbbu
u
u
u
u
e
e
e
e
F
F
F
F
A
A
A
A
A
Fig. 13Comparison of LASER (orange) and CSS (blue) performance for Cold Lake LASER Pilot.
154
Saltuklaroglu, M., Wright, G.N., Conrad, P.R., Conrad, J.R., and Manchester, G.J. 2000. Mobils SAGD experience at Celtic, Saskatchewan. J.
Cdn Pet Tech 39 (4): 45.
Stiles, L.H., Chiquito, R.M., George, C.J., and Long, L.D. 1983. Design
and Operation of a CO2 Tertiary Pilot: Means San Andres Unit. Paper
SPE 11987 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Francisco, 58 October. doi: 10.2118/11987-MS.
Stone, H.L. 1982. Vertical Conformance in an Alternating Water-Miscible
Gas Flood. Paper SPE 11130 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2629 September. doi:
10.2118/11130-MS.
Tweidt, L.I., Chase, W.D., Holowatuk, C.R., Lane, R.H., and Mitchell,
C.M. 1997. Improving Sweep Efficiency in the Norman Wells Naturally
Fractured Reservoir through the use of Polymer Gels: A Field Case
History. Paper SPE 38901 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 58 October.
doi: 10.2118/38901-MS.
Wood, K.N., Lai, F.S., and Heacock, D.W. 1993. Water Tracing Enhances
Miscible Pilot. SPE Form Eval 8 (1): 6570. SPE-19642-PA. doi:
10.2118/19642-PA.
E+00
E03
E+00
E02
E01
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
g/cm3
J
Pas
C
kPa
m3
m3