SPE 142855-PP Laboratory Tests with CO2, N2 and Lean Natural Gas in a Naturally Fractured Gas-Condesate Reservoir under

HP/HT Conditions
Heron Gachuz-Muro, SPE, Pemex-Heriot Watt University; Blanca Gonzalez-Valtierra, SPE, Pemex; Erick LunaRojero, SPE, IMP; Berenice Aguilar-Lopez, SPE, IMP; Armando Pineda-Muoz, SPE, IMP

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1921 July 2011. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract The study of gas-condensate reservoirs has been a fruitful field of research in the last years because of their peculiar behaviour. Gas cycling is the recovery process of choice for gas-condensate reservoirs but this process can often not be implemented because of economic reasons. Nitrogen is a potential alternative injection gas. Nevertheless, this has also disadvantages. The application of these processes is more complex in the offshore sites. This paper describes laboratory studies performed to evaluate the effectiveness of some gases (CO2, N2, lean natural gas) in displacing condensate from naturally fractured gas-condensate reservoirs (offshore field). Numerous hurdles had to be overcome. The experiments represented the behavior of a reservoir under HP/HT conditions, 334 oF and 8455 psia. The results of CO2 and natural depletion showed little difference in their ability to recover condensate. The natural gas raised the recovery of the light fraction, but, by contrary, the addition of N2 made evident to be less effective than the rest. The residual saturations and condensate recovery were measured and the results are presented. The detailed analyses revealed that natural gas seems to have been more effective in recovering condensate. Under these conditions, condensate recovery will significantly increase if the lean natural gas is injected. The answers are in agreement with the simulation model. The conclusions are relevant to the overall management of gas-condensate reservoir. These experiments will serve as a guideline to develop the long term corporate strategy to improve additional recoveries in Mexico.

Introduction A significant percentage of oil and gas reserves are trapped in naturally fractured reservoirs (NFR). NFR are considered to be extremely challenging in terms of correct recovery prediction because of their complexity and heterogeneity. The fractures create complex paths for fluids movement which impact reservoir characterization, and ultimately, production performance and total recovery. A major portion of the oil remains in the low permeability matrix blocks after depletion. Generally, the matrix blocks remain essentially unaffected. Primary production is derived mainly from the higher permeability fracture systems. There are no economically realistic secondary or enhanced recovery methods currently available to mobilize a significant fraction of this bypassed oil. Usually, oil is readily produced from the fracture portion of the system, however, the oil located in the matrix blocks is not easily displaced because of the relative case of the fluids to channel through the fractures and bypass the matrix pore system. Matrix recovery in NFR is achieved by an interaction between fluid in fracture and matrix oil. The oil recovery by natural depletion is usually low in NFR. Maximizing economic recovery from NFR requires a thorough understanding.

SPE 142855-PP

The declining oil production from mature oil fields after some decades of exploitation and the significant amount of oil still remaining in place, are of great concern to the oil companies. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) could increase technically and/or economically recoverable oil. In current reservoir management practice, various EOR are considered much earlier in the productive life of a field. All EOR processes are normally applied in many oil reservoirs throughout the world but few processes are used for NFR. Gas injection has been extensively applied in EOR processes, including NFR and offshore enviroments. Recent studies and limited number of field applications have shown that gas injection might result in substantial amount of additional oil recovery. Injecting lean gas into condensate reservoir is a practice currently used to increase recovery but it could be unattractive for long periods of time especially in offshore fields. As a result, the use of nonhydrocarbons gases as injection fluids has been successfully applied. A possible alternative for gas cycling is the injection of N2 or CO2. They are being widely practiced in a quite of few recovery projects. The application of these processes is more complex in the offshore sites. Supply problems may limit the use of these gases for the injection. For instance, carbon dioxide flooding has been widely put into operation but has had limited use off the coast. Hence, the feasibility of using a gas as an alternative for oil recovery is mainly an economic problem. This paper describes laboratory studies performed to evaluate the effectiveness of some gases such as CO2, N2 and Lean Natural Gas in displacing condensate from a Gas-Condensate Reservoir.

Reservoir Characteristics The relavant reservoir characteristics are as follows: average depth, 16732 ft (5100 m) subsea; initial pressure, 11916 psi (838 Kg/cm2); thickness, 459 ft (140 m); average porosity and permeability, 2.4 % and 18 mD, respectively. Materials The fluids and core used during all coreflood experiments and some their properties are mentioned above. Laboratory Conditions: Temperature: 334 oF (168 oC), Sw: 24 %, Initial Pressure: 8445 psi (594 Kg/cm2). Oil: A gas-condensate fluid was employed (offshore reservoir). Dewpoint pressure: 5692 psi (400 Kg/cm2), density and viscosity at 20 oC were 43 oAPI and 0.04 cp (average stabilized oil), respectively. The original fluid was made by combination of stock tank oil with gas mixture from a well. 1.3 liters of fluid were prepared for a given composition. Brine: Synthectic formation water was used during the experiments (salinitiy: 28, 230 ppm, electroneutrality: -1.1). The synthetic brine used in the laboratory was reformulated from the reservoir birne composition provided by the field operators. Cores: A core from a naturally fractured reservoir were dried, weighed and vacuumed. The whole segment of the core was revised. CT-Scan analysis was performed to evaluate the heterogeneity at the core scale. Examination of the core revealed a composition of CaCO3 and CaMg (CO3)2 (fluorescence and diffraction analysis). The core did not show a great variability in the poro structure, figure 1. Relevant data is presented in table 1.
Table 1.-Core data for experiments. Core 1 Diameter (pg) 4 Height (pg) 12.16 Average Permeability (mD) 0.0126 Average Porosity (%) 6.0032

SPE 142855-PP

gr/cm 3

Figure 1.- X-ray density tomography.

Gases: Three gas injection experiments were performed by Nitrogen, CO2 and Natural Gas. No precipitation of asphaltenes was observed in the rock sample by gas injection. High Pressure Core Facility: A high pressure core facility was developed to allow tests to be conducted as follows, figure 2. For convenience, the core holder were designed to accept that the long core is surrounded by a space simulating a fracture, figure 3. The core assembly was mounted vertically.

Figure 2.- Schematic of high pressure apparatus.

SPE 142855-PP

Space within the core holder (simulated fracture)

Gas Injection

Core

Core Holder

Production
Figure 3.- Gravity Drainage scheme, simulated fracture.

Experimental Tests

A set of experiments were designed to illustrate the program under certain conditions of exploitation, figure 4. The test sequence can be seen in figure 4 as well. Additional experiments were performed using CO2 and Natural Gas as the injection gases. The composition of the lean gas is shown in table 2. In the first experiment (nitrogen injection), the clean core was saturated with synthetic brine. Swi was achieved by flooding with gas-condensate fluid to 6,500 psi. After finishing this injection (Swi= 24 % approximately) the system temperature was raised to 334 oF and the sample was aged some days. Finally, the experiment was stabilized to 8445 psi (safety regulations). The general program of injection was supported by the simulation predictions, pressure and time. It is important to mention that the temperature stay contant during all the experiments, 334 oF.
Table 2.-Gas Natural Injection Properties (composition in mol porcent).
CO2 2.680 H2S 2.011 O2 0.004 N2 0.300 C1 78.462 C2 10.021 C3 3.72 i-C4 0.558 n-C4 1.094 i-C5 0.250 n-C5 0.318 C6 0.23 C7 0.143 C8 0.127 C9 0.054 C10+ 0.00734

The core was producing initially by natural depletion until a pressure close to the dewpoint pressure of 5632 psi. Any production from this part was identified. Special attention was given to the gas production. Later, the sample was subjected to gas injection by gravity drainage, see figure 3 above. The gas was injected at the top of the system with fluids produced at the bottom. The produced gas composition is shown in figure 5. This graph indicates that initially the produced gas was not enriched with Nitrogen at the early stages and at the late stages the methane went down slightly. The next two experiments were prepared in a similay way. This sequence then was repeated with CO2 and Natural Gas.

SPE 142855-PP

9000

NaturalDepletion
8000

Pi=8459.7psia

Nitrogen BaseCase GasInjection

Pressure[psia]

7000

6000

GasInjection Program DewPointPressure

5,987.7psia 5,646.7 psia

CO2

5000

Natural Depletion

4000

3000

LeanGas
2000 0 20 40 60 Time[hrs] 80 100 120

Figure 4.- General program of injection.

Figure 5.- Produced gas composition during the experiment with nitrogen.

Results

Table 3 presents results of these tests. The first experiment with nitrogen indicated that natural depletion resulted in minimal recovery, 4 % approximately. In general the rest of experiments had poor values under natural depletion. As expected, the natural gas raised the recovery of the light fraction, but, by contrary, the addition of N2 made evident to be less effective than the rest after about 170 hrs of injection, 18.7 % (total recovery factor). A significant amount of condensate was left behind during the Nitrogen flooding. Chart 6 present the first 50 hrs during the CO2 experiment. It is possible to distinguish the fast production achieved in this experiment. Finally, the detailed analyses revealed that natural gas seems to have been more effective in recovering condensate. Remember that the Methane can evaporate more condensate than Nitrogen. Under these conditions, condensate recovery will significantly increase if the lean natural gas is injected. The answers are in agreement with the simulation model.

SPE 142855-PP

Table 2.- Test Results* Gas Nitrogen Carbon Dioxide Natural Gas Natural Depletion (ml) 3.82 5.80 4.20 Final Volume (ml) 13.82 25.60 38.05 Recovery Factor % (Final) 18.70 34.78 51.70

*We assume 73.6 ml of condensate.

Figure 6.- Production after 50 hrs with the CO2 experiment.

To compare oil recovery by gas injection with that by Natural Depletion, a further experiment was planned considering normal conditions of exploitation of this field (Base Case). Surprisingly, the results of CO2 and Natural Depletion showed little difference in their ability to recover condensate, 34.78 and 35.4 % respectively. This unexpected result is higher compared to N2. It seems to be that the different factors which are the cause of lower recovery, when nitrogen is injected into the core as compared to the rest of the experiments, could attribute to: a) higher liquid drop-out and lower evaporating capacity. Figure 7 compares the findings using gases or base case. This chart clearly exhibits that recovey of trapped condensate strongly depends on the nature of the gas used. The importance of selecting correctly a recovery process can induce good recovery factors.

SPE 142855-PP

50

40

NaturalGas

ProducedVolume(ml)

30

NaturalDepletion CO2

20

N2 10

0 0 100 200 300 400 500

Time(hrs)
Figure 7.- Recovery of condensate, effects of different gases and base case.

Conclusions The findings of this study indicate that lean gas (gas cycling) is a realistic alternative for pressure depletion for this NFR under extreme conditions. More data and simulation are needed for whole verification of the magnitude of the different recovery mechanism involved in these processes. Nevertheless, a group of further evaluations are under way. These results require to be further evaluated for economic feasibility of each process for field scale operations. The experiments demonstrate the need to test different alternatives of development under real conditions of exploitation. The ultimate recovery will strongly depend on the phase behaviour of the mixture reservoir/injected fluid. If we take the present results as they are, it is important to be aware of basic economic concepts and factors that may affect the performance of this offshore reservoir. These experiments go to serve as a guideline to develop the long term corporate strategy to improve additional recoveries in Mexico.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Pemex E&P for permission to publish this article. The authors also acknowledge Pamela Maldonado and Marisela Zapata for their contribution in the experimental work.

SPE 142855-PP

Conversion Factors
o API ft3 o F km2 kg/cm2 bbl acre in

x x x x x x x

141.5/(131.5+oAPI) 0.02831 (oF-32)/1.8 247.1 14.22 0.158 9873 0.00405 0.0254

= g/cm3 = m3 = oC = acres = lb/pg2 = m3 = km2 =m

References

1. Al-Anazi, H.; Sharma, M. M.; Pope, G. A. 2004. Revaporization of Condesate with Methane Flood. Paper SPE-90860, presented at the 2004 SPE International Petroleum Conference in Mexico held in Puebla, November 8-9. 2. Boersma, D. M.; Hagoort, J. 1994. Displacement Characteristics of Nitrogen vs Methane Flooding in Volatile-Oil Reservoirs. Paper SPE-20187, SPERE, 261-265, November. 3. Castelijns, J. H. P. 1980. Recovery of Retrograde Condensed Liquid by Gravity Drainage. Paper SPE-10535. November. 4. Castelijns, J. H. P.; Hagoort, J. 1984. Recovery of Retrograde Condensate from Naturally Fractured Gas-Condensate Reservoirs. 1984. Paper SPE-11199, SPEJ, 707-717, February. 5. Darvish, G. R.; Lindeberg, E.; Holt, T. 2006. Laboratory Experiments of Tertiary CO2 Injection Into a Fractured Core. Paper SPE 99649, presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, April 22-26. 6. Donohoe, Ch.; Buchanan Jr., R. 1981. Economic Evaluation of Cycling Gas-Condensate Reservoirs with Nitrogen. Paper7494. JPT, 263-270. February. 7. Dykstra, Herman. Prediction of Oil Recovery by Gravity Drainage. Paper SPE 6548, JPT, 818-830. 8. Egermann, P.; Robin, M.; Lombard, J. M. 2003. Gas Process Displacement Efficiency Comparisons on a Carbonate Reservoir. Paper SPE 81577, presented at the SPE 13th Middle East Oil Show & Conference held in Bahrain, April 5-8. 9. Hagoort, J. 1980. Oil Recovery by Gravity Drainage. Paper SPE 7424, June, 139-150. 10. Hagoort, J.; Brinkhorst, J. W.; Van der Kleyn, P. H. 1988. Development of an Offshore Gas-Condensate Reservoir by Nitrogen Injection vs Pressure Depletion. Paper SPE-15873, JPT, 463-469, April. 11. Karimaie, H.; Darvish, G. R.; Lindeberg, E. 2007. Experimental Investigation of Secondary and Tertiary Gas Injection in Fractured Carbonate Rock. Paper SPE 107187, presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in London, United Kingdom, June 11-14. 12. Knut, U.; Lars, H. 2002. Miscible Gas Injection in Fracture Reservoirs. Paper SPE 75136, presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 13-17. 13. Li, H., Putra, E., Schechter, D. 2000. Experimental Investigations of CO2 Gravity Drainage in a Fracture System. SPE 64510, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia, October 1618.

SPE 142855-PP

14. Li, S.; Zheng, X.; Dai, Z; Luo, K.; Chen, G.; Liu, N. 2001. Investigation of Revaporization of Retrograde Condesate. Paper SPE-68170, presented at the 2001 Middle East Oil Show held in Behrain, March 17-20. 15. Miguel-Hernandez, N.; Miller, M.A.; Sepehrnoori, K. 2004. Scaling Parameters for Characterization Gravity Drainage in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Paper SPE 89990, International Petroleum Conference, Mexico. 16. Mohammad, J. 2004. Vertical Miscible Displacement of Oil from Fractured Reservoir. Paper SPE 88791, presented at the 11th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, AUE, October 10-13. 17. Moses, P.; Wilson, K. 1981. Phase Equilibrium Considerations in Using Nitrogen for Improved Recovery from Retrograde Condensate Reservoirs. Paper SPE-7493. JPT, 256-262. February. 18. Sanger, P; Hagoort, J. 1998. Recovery of Gas Condensate by Nitrogen Injection Compared with Methane Injection. Paper SPE-30795, SPEJ, 26-33, March.