Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SPE
Society of Petroleum Engineel'S
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Arctic Technology Conference held in Anchorage, Alaska, May 29-31, 1991.
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,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author{s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.
187
2 WATERFLOOD MONITORING TECHNIQUE IMPROVES RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT SPE 22075
188
SPE 22075 M. R. STARZER, C. U. BORDEN, A. B. SCHOFFMANN 3
PERFORMANCE AREA ANALYSIS METHOD
individual PAs, N, 0 and P, compared with
The PA analysis method was developed to expected (no cycling) reservoir
segment the reservoir into manageable performance. Figure 6 demonstrates the
units while respecting that analytical effect of combining PAs N, 0 and P, again,
analysis of peripheral waterfloods compared with expected performance. The
required an holistic approach. This larger PA NOP eases full field performance
technique also eliminated the bench predictions while the smaller individual
allocation problems and reduced the impact areas N, 0 and P assist in understanding
of well allocation inaccuracies. fluid movement for SUbsequent project
analysis.
The approach keeps the rigorousness of the
analysis wi thin the accuracy of the data Recovery targets were established for each
and supporting assumptions. PA by comparing the performance
predictions between areas. PAs which
As an example, full field reservoir significantly departed from the full field
pressure measurements did not support performance were identified for further
material balance calculations. Therefore, investigation. Through the use of
an injection efficiency was applied to the analytical performance prediction methods,
field. Whether injection losses were a the potential of additional development
result of field metering inaccuracies or for each PA was quantified. Production
lack of zonal injection control, these decline and water-oil ratio versus
losses could not be allocated on a well by recovery plots developed for each PA
well or bench by bench basis. Losses were easily identified under-developed areas or
assigned equally to all injectors and the areas in which water cycling may be
target injection-withdrawal ratio for each occurring.
area reflected this efficiency.
An example of one such analysis is
Each PA was selected such that the demonstrated by Figures 7, 8 and 9.
cumulative injection-withdrawal ratio was Figure 7 is a plot of the producing
equal to. the overall field ratio for ease water-oil ratio trend for the full field.
of future comparisons. Each area includes Figures 8 and 9 demonstrate the water-oil
one or more injection wells and a group of ratio trend for two individual PAs HIJK
production wells as demonstrated in Figure and QLM. The trending of PA HIJK
4. The boundaries within a fixed PA were reasonably follows predicted performance.
intended to account for all injected and When PA HIJK is compared to the full field
produced fluid within a fixed geometry. performance, the area's injection
The limits of the PAs were not considered efficiency and curve trend is better than
"no flow" boundaries through time. The the full field. In contrast, PA QLM
areas were constructed to identify changes demonstrates an unfavorable trend in the
in injection-withdrawal balance throughout water-oil ratio curve. This area became a
the field. target for injection efficiency
enhancement. Similar comparisons assisted
PA boundaries were transcribed onto net in developing reservoir management
pay maps for each bench. Total Hemlock strategies for distinct areas within the
pore volume for each PA was calculated. reservoir. with the PA analysis method,
PA pore volumes injected, recoveries and action plans for the areas were quickly
recovery efficiencies were determined. developed and checked for feasibility
This provided a vOlumetric basis to prior to conducting detailed engineering.
monitor changes. Each PA was further
evaluated to establish trends and predict
future performance. Analysis methods SUMMARY
included production decline and water-oil
ratio trending. Prediction of future The development of a direct and concise
performance for each PA was closely reservoir management method assisted the
compared to full field predictions. formulation of development strategies for
the Hemlock Reservoir. The method
Initially, eighteen PAs were identified. simplified analysis by keeping the
For some of the PAs, plots of recovery rigorousness of the analysis within the
fraction versus displaceable-pore-volume- accuracy of the data and supporting
injected showed erratic behavior over assumptions.
time. This plot has been used as a
qualitative indication of the relationship The analysis method enabled prompt
between injection and withdrawal in screening of development proposals for
waterfloods. In this analysis, deviation feasibility prior to detailed engineering
by a PA from average reservoir behavior evaluation. Evaluation time was saved by
indicates fluid movement across targeting engineering and geologic efforts
boundaries. Combining several adjacent at poor performing areas. In addition to
PAs resulted in behavior more indicative reducing analysis costs, a significant
of the full field and made simpler the use benef it of the method was the clear and
of future prediction methods. Figure 5 direct tracking of reservoir performance.
demonstrates this relationship for three
189
4 WATERFLOOD MONITORING TECHNIQUE IMPROVES RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT SPE 22075
PA Analysis Procedure
1) Define PAs within reservoir respecting
well placement, performance trends and
accuracy of data available.
2) compile performance information and
predict future performance for each PA.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
190
SPE 22075
+.
-j-
I
-/
!:iz
::l
>-
4(
IXI
-I- C'
Z
-I
__ ti:;.[~i
:
I
-I-
I
I
1-
I
=
I
r------'
I
"
'111
1000
I : I
""-_.-_---_
-I-
...- ....
------' -:-
. . .-=:::::....... _ ..__ TRADING SA Y UNIT
McARTHUR RIVER FIELD
Figure 1
Structure Map of Hemlock Reservoir, McArthur River Field
191
SPE 2207 5
TYPE LOG
McARTHUR RIVER FIELD TBU RATE HISTORY
HEMLOCK CONGLOMERATE HEMLOCK
UNION T.B.U. G-10 1000000 10
SECT. 29, T.9 N., R.13 W. (S.M.)
BI TYONEK 10,336'MD
(-9562')
100000
R
A
UJ T
I- E
<t 10000 0.1
0::
---'I~
UJ B
::E (/) P WOR
0 UJ D
..J ::I: -11,600'
Cl ()
Z Z
0 UJ 1000 0.01
() ra
..J
...
CD
~
() 0
I\) 0
..J
::E 100 0.001
UJ
::I: -11,800'
1/67 1/69 1/71 1/73 1/75 1/77 1/79 1181 1/83 1/85 1/87 1/89
Figure 2
Type Log for lhe Hemlock Reservoir
SPE 22075
II
" II
OJ
"0:- . ,
"j F
I
I":
IJ
I
I
., "
E
"
K
II o n
- - ;;A~.:=- ---
....
" C
.,
." a
I "
1
~
" OJ
II
"
"
R
A
II . II
,_
S-'.,.... I(lt)OQ
t - . . - . - . , ...
Figure 4
Map of Helnlock Reservoir PerfOrlllanCe Areas
193
0.7
0.6
/
V
R
e 0.5 f"O
/
0
V
c
e 0.4
/.-
/~
V "Expected
r "rC-f' oAreaN
y
% 0.3
/y ;:/ + Area 0
~~
-<>AreaP
0
0
I 0.2 I / 1\ I
V
P V
0.1
/ )
~
V ~
~~
amco~dfurim~tionemcien~87~5%
0 ,
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Volumetric Efficiency
Figure 5
Recovery Fraction vs. Displaceable-Pore-Volumes-Injected
Individual PAs N. 0 and P
0.7
1
0.6
V
R
e 0.5
1/V
c
0
V /
V
e 0.4
r ti- .. EXpected
~
y o Hemlock
--AreaNOP
r
% 0.3
0
0
I
P
0.2
t ~
.r:/
0.1
t ~ I
V Data corrected for iniection efficiency 87.25
0
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Volumetric Efficiency
Figure 6
Recovery Fraction vs. Displaceable-Pore-Volumes-Injected
Combined PA NOP
194
SPE 22075
WOR VS RECOVERY
HEMLOCK
100
I /'
I 7
10 /1 FRACTIONAL FLOW PREDICTION
/' I
.'/
w
o
;;/
I'
R
-.-
"
/
~ ... ,,-
..... / ".. '
0.1 IPROOUCING WOAI
". I I
: 7
.,~)"/l
0.01
': I /
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Recowry F.ctOl' (OOIPl
Figure 7
Water-Qil Ratio vs. Recovery, Hemlock Reservoir
100
/'
./
10
/ FRACTIONAL FLOW PREDICTIONl
I~ /
,(I /'
w
o
R
""'//
"
1/ :
Al ..
't" '.'
~.
: IPRODUClNG WOAI
0.1
;
,.'
.: ~:
I /
:: ;-
0.01
'II : : ' / I
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Reccawry FlICtot (OOIPI
Figure 8
Water-Qil Ratio vs. Recovery. PA HIJK
195
WOR VS RECOVERY - AREA QlM
100
/'
./
10
/ FRACTIONAL FLOW PREDICTIONL
,. /'
-.)1./
w
o
R
V
"
"
;"'/,
:y
. \_,:'\/.'".
,,,
'"
0.1
/?" " IPRODUCING wool
:!
0.01
.7
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
R-.ry Fector lOOIPj
Figure 9
Water-Qil Ratio vs. Recovery, PA QLM
196