SPE 93472
Reservoir Characterization and Simulations Studies in a Heterogeneous Pinnacle Reef
for CO2 Flooding Purposes: A Case Study
A. Al-Dliwe, SPE, and K. Asghari, SPE, U. of Regina
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
T his pa per w a s prepa red for presenta tion a t the 1 4 th SPE M id d le Ea st O il & G a s Show a nd
Conference held in B a hra in Interna tiona l Ex hib ition Centre, B a hra in, 1 2– 1 5 M a rch 2005.
T his pa per w a s selected for presenta tion b y a n SPE Progra m Committee follow ing rev iew of
informa tion conta ined in a proposa l sub mitted b y the a uthor(s). Contents of the pa per, a s
presented , ha v e not b een rev iew ed b y the Society of Petroleum Engineers a nd a re sub ject to
correction b y the a uthor(s). T he ma teria l, a s presented , d oes not necessa rily reflect a ny
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or memb ers. Pa pers presented a t
SPE meetings a re sub ject to pub lica tion rev iew b y Ed itoria l Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reprod uction, d istrib ution, or stora ge of a ny pa rt of this pa per
for commercia l purposes w ithout the w ritten consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohib ited . Permission to reprod uce in print is restricted to a proposa l of not more tha n 3 00
w ord s; illustra tions ma y not b e copied . T he proposa l must conta in conspicuous
a ck now led gment of w here a nd b y w hom the pa per w a s presented . W rite L ib ra ria n, SPE, P.O .
B ox 8 3 3 8 3 6 , R icha rd son, T X 7 508 3 -3 8 3 6 , U .S.A ., fa x 01 -9 7 2-9 52-9 4 3 5.
Abstract
Carbon dioxide injection is an effective method for enhanced
oil recovery . In this p rocess, CO 2 develop s miscibility w ith
the oil u nder reservoir conditions, and leads to additional oil
recovery . P rop er reservoir characteriz ation has a significant
influ ence on designing and imp lementing a su ccessfu l CO 2
flood in a reservoir.
T his p ap er p resents the resu lts of a reservoir
characteriz ation analy sis and simu lation in a relatively small
reef located in N orthern A lberta, Canada, w hich w as selected
as a candidate for a CO 2 injection p roject. T his reef has a thick
oil colu mn sp anning a small area w ith steep ly slop ing sides,
and tw o w ells drilled on the same side of the reef. O p en-hole
logs and p rodu ction history data w ere available for only one of
the tw o w ells. D ata analy ses disclosed a nu mber of challenges
that cou ld affect the resu lts of any simu lation for p redicting
the p erformance of CO 2 disp lacement in this field. T hese
challenges inclu ded, bu t w ere not limited to, the existence of
tw o no-flow barriers w ith u nk now n extensions, lack of other
data su ch as relative p ermeability , and lack of information on
lateral distribu tion of the reservoir p rop erties. M aterial balance
analy sis indicated the maximu m oil in p lace w as 4.7 M M S T B
w ith a w eak w ater su p p ort.
A fu lly comp ositional reservoir simu lator (CM G -G E M TM)
w as u sed w ith the aim of imp roving the u nderstanding of the
reservoir characteristics, and investigating the su itability of
CO 2 injection. A n 8 -comp onent P eng-R obinson E O S w as
u tiliz ed to describe the p hase behaviou r of the reservoir flu ids
and injected CO 2. H istory matching w as done and the cu rrent
reservoir p ressu re w as fou nd to be abou t 10 0 0 p si below the
minimu m miscibility p ressu re. A simu lation stu dy w as
condu cted and the model p redicted an incremental oil
recovery of arou nd 1.0 4 M M S T B and abou t 0 .424 M t of
injected gas stored in the reservoir.
Introduction
Carbon dioxide injection in oil reservoirs for the sak e of
enhanced oil recovery is a commercially p roven technology
targeting light to mediu m oils. It has been u sed extensively in
the P ermian B asin of W est T exas and N ew M exico in the
U nited S tates du ring the 7 0 s and 8 0 s. Cu rrently , abou t 7 4
p rojects are op erating in the w orld w ith majority of these
p rojects situ ated in the U .S . (6 6 p rojects). M ost of these
p rojects u se CO 2 from natu rally occu rring u ndergrou nd
reservoirs, w hich are connected w ith a netw ork of p ip elines to
deliver CO 2 to the injection sites1. In some cases, sw eetening
gas p lants are installed in order to redu ce the su lfu r content in
the gas streams to meet p ip eline sp ecifications. T hese gas
p lants are p rodu cing large amou nts of sou r gas that can be
u tiliz ed for E O R p u rp oses2. A bou t 47 acid gas disp osal sites
are cu rrently op erating in Canada, w here close to 1.5 M t CO 2
and 1 M t H 2S have been su ccessfu lly injected to date into deep
hy drocarbon reservoirs and saline aq u ifers3.
Carbon dioxide, w hen introdu ced into the reservoir,
develop s miscibility throu gh mu ltip le contacts w ith the
reservoir oil. H ow ever, a certain p ressu re is needed to achieve
this miscibility , w hich is called the minimu m miscibility
p ressu re (M M P ). W hen CO 2 is above its critical conditions
(10 7 1 p si, 8 8 qF ), its density is in the range of the reservoir oil
density , bu t its viscosity is less than that of reservoir oil,
w hich w ill resu lt in an u nfavorable mobility ratio. L aboratory
and field tests have indicated that even u nder very favorable
conditions, injection of 5 -20 M scf of CO 2 is req u ired to
recover an additional barrel of oil 4.
S u ch major sou rces inclu de thermal p ow er p lants,
p etrochemical indu stry , and cement manu factu ring.
O p timiz ing CO 2 storage w hile maximiz ing additional oil
recovered from the reservoirs meets the need of oil indu stry ,
as w ell as, facilitates in the redu ction of G H G emissions. T his
is imp ortant becau se the concentrations of the major
greenhou se gases [CO 2, methane (CH 4), and nitrou s oxide
(N 2O )] have increased su bstantially from its p re-indu strial
levels. T he concentration of CO 2, w hich released to the
atmosp here mainly as a resu lt of bu rning fossil fu els, has
2 SPE 93472
increased by approximately one-third from the pre-industrial
levels of approximately 280 to 370 ppm today5. Current
emissions of CO2 globally are approximately 24 Gt per year or
approximately 6.5 Gt/yr of carbon. These current emissions
exceed the capacity of the natural system to absorb them and
will accumulate in the atmosphere as a result6. There is some
evidence that increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2
may be the main contributor to global warming currently
estimated to have increased the earth’s temperature by 0.3 to
0.6 qC during the last 150 years7. The K yoto Protocol8 of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
call for the developed countries to reduce their emissions of
greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2% below the 1990 levels
no later than 2012. Canada targets about a 6% reduction below
1990 levels between the years 2008 and 2012 as compliance
with the K yoto treaty.
Selecting the right reservoir for storing CO2 is not an easy
task. Besides the long-term fate of CO2 in the reservoir, one
should also determine the maximum or optimum amount of
CO2 that could be stored in the reservoir. If CO2 storage is in
conjunction with improving oil recovery, the issue of
determining optimum amount of CO2 stored becomes more
vital due to its direct effect on the economy of project. A good
example of an oil reservoir being used for both oil
enhancement and CO2 storage is the Weyburn oil field. It is
located in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, and utilizes 96%
pure CO2 produced from a coal gasification facility located at
Beullah, North Dakota fed into a 330 km pipeline. A total of
20 million tonnes of CO2 is to be injected into the reservoir
over the project life with an estimated incremental EOR oil of
130 million bbls.
A proper modeling of reservoir heterogeneities and
structure is a key factor in the success of CO2-flood project
and for development of the optimum depletion plan. In the
province of Alberta, Canada, about 60 percent of the oil pools
are single well pools10. McCulloch et al.11 suggested that layer
cake model (the reef is divided into a series of layers parallel
to the reef base) can be used to obtain an adequate reservoir
description. Beside reservoir heterogeneity, reservoir fluid
properties, injection/production practices (including well
completions), and the CO2 purity impact the final results of
any CO2 injection project. V ertical miscible floods are
implanted in pinnacle reefs, anticline reservoirs, and reservoirs
with high relief angle. When applying this method in
heterogenous reservoirs with horizontal non-flow barriers, a
substantial reduction in oil recovery is expected as result of
poor vertical sweep efficiency9.
Reservoir simulation is a powerful tool that can be
exploited to study the effect of various parameters in order to
design a better developmental plan. In this paper the results of
reservoir characterization and simulation study for a depleted
heterogeneous pinnacle reef located in the Z ama K eg River
region in Alberta, Canada, are presented. There are two wells
drilled in the pinnacle reef under investigation, where the data
from only one well is available for modeling such a
heterogenous reservoir. This reservoir was discovered in 1967
and has a thick oil column spanning a small area (dome
shaped). It had been producing below the bubble-point
pressure for a while before converted into a disposal water
site. A simulation study has been conducted using 3-D, full-
scale compositional model “ CMG-GEM” to match the
available production and pressure history of the field, and run
various predictive scenarios that maximize both oil recovery
and CO2 storage capacity. A rough economic study is also
implemented to weigh the best-case scenario against other
prediction cases. Results will lay the groundwork for studying
the feasibility of implementing CO2 flooding in Z ama Basin
and use the findings to study the potential for other sites in the
same basin.
Study Objectives
The main objective of this study is to develop better
understanding of the underlying mechanism(s) for oil
production from, better manage the remaining oil in, and study
the feasibility of miscible-CO2 flood in Z ama K eg River basin.
This goal is achieved by:
1. Review and analyze rock and fluid properties, well
log data, develop geological model, and study the
injection and production history for better
understanding of the reservoir geology and
production mechanisms.
2. Review and analyze the reservoir fluid properties,
calculate different black oil parameters and use these
analyses to create a compositional EOS model that
will be used in the dynamic model to describe the
CO2/oil phase behaviour, which provides more
reliable predictions of CO2-flooding performance.
3. Calibrate the model to match the production and the
injection history and establish the current fluid
distributions. The calibrated model will be used to
predict the future performance under different
miscible or near-miscible injection schemes.
4. Conduct various predictive simulation scenarios for
investigating the feasibility of CO2 injection EOR
process in this reef, while optimizing the amount of
CO2 stored in this field.
Production and Injection History
The initial oil production from this field was started in April
1967 through Well 08-13. The pressure declined very fast
from its initial pressure of 2100 psi as a response to the oil
production and reached the bubble-point pressure in less than
two years. PV T and GOR data clearly showed that the
saturation pressure was 1275 psi. After the gas started to
breakthrough, the GOR increased dramatically reaching more
than 1000 Scf/STB compared to the initial GOR of 300
Scf/STB with no water production reported until early 1974.
The water production was a problem and it was addressed
through many workovers, mainly plugback and perforation of
the upper layers. Detailed analysis of the water production
mechanism was performed using WOR derivative diagnostic
plots12. This analysis indicated that water channelling through
high permeability streaks and potential fractures were
responsible for this behaviour.
In 1987, this well was converted into a disposal well
through which more than 2.4 MM bbl of water has been
pumped into the formation. In 2002, a second well (Well 01-
13) was drilled and the reservoir pressure measured to be 3425
SPE 93472
psi. This well was put on production in the same year, it
started producing about 300 STB/day with a rapid decline, on
the same time the water cut increased dramatically and so did
the GOR. As of May 2003, the overall production from this
reservoir was 1.107 MMSTB of oil, 540 MMscf of gas, and
0.4 MM bbl of water, the recovery factor has been estimated
to be 31 %.
Reservoir Characterization and The Geological
M odel
The reservoir under study is a heterogeneous carbonate reef
with a thick oil column over small area that has a dome shape
(Fig. 1). The reef is composed of two distinct dolomite
formations separated by anhydrite barriers (see type log in Fig.
2). The upper formation’s thickness is 80 ft and it has 0.08
porosity and high permeability in the range of 100 md, with
exception to the first 18 ft of the zone that has an average 1000
md permeability. The lower formation is more heterogeneous
with an average thickness of 85 ft, average porosity of 0.09,
and average permeability of 300 md. The average reservoir
depth is 3700 ft, with 2100 psi initial pressure and reservoir
temperature of 160qF. The oil has a viscosity of 2.64 cp and
average crude gravity of 34qAPI. For this study, the data used
to generate the geological model included: 3-D seismic, Well-
interpreted logs and core data from Well 08-13 and top
porosity marker from Well 01-13. The main challenge
encountered was building the geological model using only one
well for modeling such a heterogeneous reservoir. Even
though the vertical heterogeneity was captured (assumingly),
the lateral variations were not. Since the attic of the pinnacle
was not penetrated by any of the two wells drilled, assigning
the adjacent known layers’ properties was a proper decision.
Composite porosity data from core and log data was assigned
to the model grid blocks. Porosity-permeability cloud
transform was used to assign the horizontal permeability to
each grid block in the model. The model contains a total of
49,950 grid blocks (30 X 37 X 45) in which 15,763 were
active grid blocks. Average size of the grid blocks is 50 x 50
x 6 ft in I, J and K directions, respectively. The final model
was exported to the numerical simulator “CMG-GEM” that
was used later for the dynamic model.
Routine Core Analysis D ata
A conventional core study was performed in 1967 on core
recovered from Well 08-13. About 128.8 ft interval has been
cored and analyzed in Keg River formation. In Zama
formation, no cores have been recovered. In all the cores
recovered, vertical and horizontal permeability, porosity, fluid
saturation, and rock density had been measured.
In Keg formation, horizontal permeability exhibits a wide
range. It ranges from 0.1 md to more than 400 md. In some
intervals of high permeability zones it is as high as 30000 md,
which could be indicative of fractures or channels. These
intervals are expected to be the main conduits for flow and the
main pathways for water channelling into the production well
as it will be discussed latter. Core porosity spans a wide
range. It ranges from 2 to 20 percent within an average value
of 8 percent for Zama formation and 9 percent for Keg
3
formation; these figures are typical for carbonate reservoirs.
Porosity-Permeability cloud transform (Fig. 3) has been
generated and used to convert porosity data into the
permeability data in the formation. Fig. 4 shows cross-plot
between the vertical permeability and the horizontal
permeability on log-log scale. The generated relation is used
for interpolating the vertical permeability data into the static
geological model successfully using the following generated
formulas:
6 3 .5
K h 10 I .......... .......... .......... .......... ...( 1 )
0 . 24
K V 1 . 27 K h .......... .......... .......... ........( 2)
where K h is the horizontal permeability, K v is the vertical
permeability, and I is the rock porosity.
Relative Perm eability and Cap illary p ressure data
In this reservoir, no actual special core analysis is available for
use in the dynamic model. Relative permeability sets for both
oil/water system and gas/oil system and capillary pressure data
set have been obtained from an analogous reservoir located in
the same basin. Because the system contains oil, water, and
gas, three-phase relative permeability should be used. In the
simulation work, Stone 2 method13 is used, which is a three-
phase relative permeability correlation that utilizes two-phase
relative permeability. Since these sets of relative
permeabilities and the capillary pressure were not
representative of the actual reservoir characteristics, these sets
were subject to changes in the early stages of the history
match. Figures 5 and 6 show oil/water and oil/gas relative
permeability data for this set of simulations, respectively. The
capillary pressure data is presented in Figure 7.
Oil In Place E stim ation
Before starting the simulation work, material balance analysis
was used as a screening tool to identify the original oil in
place (OOIP) and the oil production mechanism. Such analysis
can provide useful insights that can enhance our understanding
of the reservoir under study (see Pletcher14 for an extensive
review on the material balance). Campbell plot, which can be
obtained by plotting F on the y-axis vs. F on the x-axis, is
Et
useful in a qualitative sense to distinguish between weak,
strong, and moderate aquifer support. This plot as shown in
Figure 8 has indicated that the reservoir under study has a
weak aquifer support. Analysis of the production and pressure
history also confirmed this conclusion. This conclusion led us
to use material balance for undersaturated oil reservoirs
without water influx (Figure 9) for OOIP estimation. Fitting
the straight line has indicated that the maximum OOIP is 4.7
MMSTB. This figure represents the higer end of the potential
OOIP in this reservoir.
Aq uifer Rep resentation
Early analysis of the aquifer influence using material balance
calculations showed that the aquifer was weak as
demonstrated by Campbell14 diagnostic plot (Figure 8) and the
4 SPE 93472
pressure depletion-declining trend. However, its extension
and its actual strength effect are not known because there is no
pressure data recorded from other parts of the reservoir.
During the process of building the geological model,
additional layers below the oil-water contact were added to
allow for enough grid cells to enhance model aquifer
influence. The trial and error approach was involved in the
early history-matching phase to identify the proper aquifer
model and to estimate its physical limits and its
characteristics.
PVT Model For The Compositional Simulator
An 8-component Peng-Robinson15 EOS system was
successfully developed and tuned based on the PVT tests
(differential Liberation, constant compostion expansion, and
separator tests) using WINPROP¥ module (see Figure 10 as
an example). The procedure was a mix of splitting and
lumping of the original 12 components. The heavy
component (C7+ ) was split into three pseudo components;
these components are C7-C13, C14-C17 and C18+ . The other
components were lumped as the following: N2 and C1, C2 to n-
C4 and iso-C5 to FC6. This model has been exported to the
fully compositional simulator (CMG-GEM), which uses EOS
to calculate phase equilibrium and the mass transfer of
components between phases. Table 1 summarizes the black oil
fluid properties.
Table 1. Reservoir Fluid properties
Initial reservoir pressure 2100 psi
Reservoir Temperature 160qF
Initial formation volume factor 1.1744 RB/STB
Solution gas oil ratio 284 scf/STB
Saturation Pressure 1275 psi
Formation volume factor @ Pb 1.183 RB/STB
1.26 cp @ Pb & 2.64
Viscosity range
cp @ SC
Gravity of stock tank fluid 33.9 qAPI
Minimum Miscibility Pressure Study
A recent PVT study using recombined surface oil and gas
samples collected from well 01-13 was conducted. The
minimum miscibility pressure was measured using the rising
bubble apparatus. Two different injection gases were used for
determining MMP: pure CO2 and 20% H2S in CO2. The
minimum miscibility pressure for the pure CO2 was measured
to be 2886 psi compared to 2407 psi for the 20% H2S in CO2.
An average value of 2500 psi was used for the case of 10%
H2S in CO2 gas stream.
History Match
A single porosity, single permeability model was used to
match fluid production rates and pressure versus time. Oil rate,
GOR, reservoir pressure, and water cut have been matched
simultaneously using the oil rate as the controlling parameter.
Figure 11 shows the final results of history matching phase for
the observed and the simulated data.
The most important modifications made during the history
match phase were to the following parameters:
- Porosity and horizontal permeability of both the main
reef and its attic.
- Aquifer size and its strength.
- Capillary pressure and relative permeability data sets
of both Oil/Water and Gas/Oil systems.
- Vertical permeability of the non-flow barriers and
pay zones.
- The lateral extension of the non-flow barriers.
- Water volumes injected into the reservoir.
The results of this phase indicated that OOIP is 3.98 MMSTB
and the formation was oil wet with an average residual oil of
30%. It also indicated that the non-flow barriers had higher
vertical permeability than what was thought initially and
allowed for the flow in most locations. The current reservoir
pressure is 1470 psi, which means the reservoir needs to be
pressured up more than the MMP of 2500 psi to ensure
miscible displacement. Unfortunatly, no recent pressure
measurements were available to verify this figure. The actual
water injected volumes into the reservoir were investigated as
well. From the workover history, there was an indication of
casing leak and leakage from the injection packer that was
supposed to prevent water from entering the formation. Fluid
distributions (Figure 12) in the reservoir after the history
match are shown in the reservoir cross-section through well
08-13.
Development options
After the history match phase was completed, several
prediction scenarios were performed to investigate the
applicability of CO2 injection in the reservoir. Raising the
reservoir pressure higher than MMP was essential to ensure
miscible displacement. In all prediction cases the operating
pressure was kept higher that MMP of 2500 psi and maximum
liquid rate of 1000 bbl/day. For the injection well, two
constraints were imposed, the injection rate was kept 3.4 MM
scf/day of 10% H2S in CO2 stream and the injection pressure
did not exceed the reservoir parting pressure of 4300 psi. The
main goal of all these predictions is to get the
injection/production scheme that maximizes both incremental
oil recovered and amount of gas stored. Since the production
from the reservoir was stopped in 2003, the reservoir
conditions on June 1, 2003 was selected as the starting date
and conditions for CO2 injection. All these runs have been
restricted to 17 years of operations. Description of each
development scenario is as follows.
S c h em e 1-G ravity D rain ag e C ase U sin g Th e E x istin g Tw o
W ells. In this case the gas injection was established from the
top of the formation through well 01-13. Continuous gas
injection utilizing the available gas rate of 3.4 MMscf/day was
used to pressure up the reservoir above its MMP pressure
without any production at the beginning. It took 78 days of
SPE 93472
continuous injection to reach the reservoir pressure of 2500
psi. Then the production started with a total liquid rate of
1000 bbl/day. Due to the close proximity of the two wells, low
sweep efficiency and early gas breakthrough were expected.
Oil rate peaked at 200 bbl/day after 1.5 years. Early
production with high water cut was observed, and indicated
that the miscible bank is formed and it is pushing down into
the production zone2. Gas breakthrough into the production
well was observed within less than six months. Cumulative
incremental oil production (EOR oil) after 17 years of
production was 0.54 MMSTB with 1.74 hydrocarbon pore
volume injected (PVI). The sour gas (CO2+H2S) retained was
0.38 Mt. Production and injection performance are shown in
Figures 13 and 14.
Scheme 2-Horizontal Re-Entry of the Existing Two
V ertical Wells. The application of horizontal wells can
improve the sweep efficiency, shorten the project life,
maintain the resevoir pressure above its MMP with low
injectivity requirments, and better productivity9, 16, 17, 18.
Hence, in this scheme, horizontal re-entry of the existing wells
was considered. Injection was established through the well
01-13 penetrating layer 13 lateraly (top porosity depth at well
01-13). Well 08-13 was used for oil production, which is
entered layer 40 horizontally (just above the original water oil
contact) with total liquid rate of 1500 bbl/day. Higher gas
injectivity was observed (see Figures 15 and 16 for reservoir
performance) as compared to the previous case. Late gas
breakthrough and high plateau oil rate were achieved. Oil rate
peaked at 550 bbl/day in early 2006 just at the gas
breakthrough time. As a result of the high sweep efficiency,
the incremental EOR oil is 0.87 MMSTB and the total sour
gas stored is 0.398 Mt with 2.0 PVI.
Scheme-3 Drilling a new well South-East well 0 1-13 . The
effect of a new vertical to be drilled at the other side of the
pinnacle was investigated through Scheme 3. Injection was
established from well 01-13 (top of the Zama formation) and
the newly drilled well 02-13 was used for oil production. The
injection and production rates used in Scheme 1 were applied.
The production well perforations were located in the Keg
formation (layers 30-40 are perforated). Figure 17 shows the
location of the new well. Maximum oil rate of 450 STB/day
was obtained after five years of continous CO2 injection with
high water production initially (Figures 18 and 19). Gas
breakthrough also was observed at the same time. This case is
characterized by long response time and higher oil recovery.
Incremental EOR oil obtained is 1.29 MMSTB and sour gas
retained is 0.529 Mt. Tatal pore volume injected was 1.54.
Scheme-4 Use of two vertical wells for CO 2 injection and
one horizontal well for oil production. In this case, the
hypothetical newly drilled well (see Scheme 3) of 02-13 and
well 01-13 are used for gas injection with an injection rate of
1.7 MMscf/day for each of them. Re-entering horizontally of
the Well 08-13 was used as a production well placed in layer
40 (initial WOC depth) with a design total liquid rate of 1500
bbl/day. With this injection/production scheme, CO2 was
introduced in both sides of the pinnacle and will move down
as a blanket pushing the oil bank downward into the
5
production well, which is placed horizontally across the
bottom of the pinnacle. Seventy-six days were needed to
pressure up the reservoir above its MMP and the oil
production peaked after 3 years of injection. Maximum oil rate
obtained was in the range of 670 STB/day and the gas
breakthrough in two years and 8 months (Figures 20 and 21).
Incremental EOR oil recovered was 1.04 MMSTB. Total pore
volume injected was 1.988 and the sour gas retained is 0.424
Mt.
Economic study
In this section, we intend to use a simple economic model to
compare the four schemes mentioned above. Parameters used
in this study are as the follows:
Cost of drilling new vertical well = $ 800,000.
Cost of horizontal Re-Entry = $ 200,000.
Operation Cost = 7.5 $ /STB.
Oil Price = $ 40.
Discount Rate = 15%.
The net present value calculated for each Scheme are 7.69,
13.9, 14.5, and 15.4 $ MM, for Scheme 1, 2, 3, and Scheme 4,
respectively. This means that Scheme 4 is the best scheme to
develop this reservoir, which combines both high oil recovery
and quick oil production response. This model shows clearly
that the profitability of the project should be judged by both
oil recovered and the time needed to recover this oil.
Conclusions
Based on the results of the geological and engineering data,
history match, and the prediction scenarios, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1. History matching investigations indicated that there
is good communication between Zama and Keg
formations, especially in the well 08-13 area, the
main reef has better rock quality, OOIP = 3.98
MMSTB, the attic rock properties (porosity and
permeability) are less than the neighbouring layers
2. The current reservoir pressure is about 1000 psi less
than the minimum miscibility pressure.
3. The compositional reservoir model gave very
reasonable perditions for the CO2-flood performance.
On average, 2 months of injection were needed to
pressure up the reservoir to reach the minimum
miscibility pressure.
4. Utilizing the scheme of two vertical wells as injectors
and one horizontal well as a producer, gave the best
development scheme compared to other
injection/production schemes.
5. Economic study was helpful in decision making to
redevelop the field.
Nomenclature
Gt = Giga tonnes
Mt = Mega tonnes
GOR= gas oil ratio
Scf = standard cubic feet
ft = feet
6 SPE 93472

md = md, L2 13. Stone, H.L.: “Estimation of Three-Phase Relative

Kh = horizontal permeability,L2, md Permeability and Residual Oil Data”, Journal of Canadian
Kv = vertical permeability,L2, md Petroleum Technology 12 (4), 53-61, 1973.
14. Pletcher J.L.: “Improvements to Reservoir Material –
I = Porosity Balance Methods,” SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
F = cumulative reservoir voidage, L3,res bbl Engineering (Feb. 2002), 49-59.
15. Peng, D.Y . and Robinson, D.B.: “A New Two-Constant
Et = cumulative total expansion, L3/L3, RB/STB Equation of State,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Fundamentals (1976) 15, 59-64.
Acknowledgements 16. Malik, Q . and Islam M.: “CO2 injection in the Weyburn
The Authors would like to thank Apache Canada LTD. for the field of Canada: Optimization of Enhanced Oil Recovery
and Greenhouse Gas Storage With Horizontal Wells,”
approval to publish this paper. The Authors would like also to
paper SPE 59327 presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE
thank Petroleum Technology Research Center (PTRC) for Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa,
their financial support. Oklahoma, 3-5 April 2000.
17. Taber J.J. and Seright R.S.: “Horizontal Injection and
Production Wells for EOR or Waterflooding,” paper SPE
References 23952 presented at the 1992 SPE Permian Basin Oil and
Gas Recovery Conference held in Midland, Texas, March
1. Jarrell, P.M., Fox, C.E, Stein, M.H., Webb, S.L.: “Practical
18-20, 1992.
Aspects Of CO2 Flooding,” SPE Monograph series, volume
18. Lim, M.T., Khan, S.A., Sepehrnoori, K., Pope, G.A.:
22, Richardson, TX, 2002.
“Simulation of Carbon Dioxide Flooding Using Horizontal
2. Davison, R.;Mayder,A.;D. and Jarrel, J.L.: “Zama acid gas
Wells,” paper SPE 24929 presented at the 67th Annual
disposal/miscible flood implementation and results”
Technical Conference in Washington, D.C, October 4-7,
Journal of Canadian Oil Technology, 38:2,45-54. 1999.
1992.
3. Stefan Bachu, Adams J.J., Michael K. and Buschkuehle
B.E.: “Acid Gas Injection in Alberta Basin: a Commercial-
Scale Analogue for CO2 Geological sequestration in
sedimentary Basins,” paper presented at the 7th
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies. Held in Vancouver, Canada, September 5-9,
2004.
4. BONDER P.L., “Applications of Carbon Dioxide in
Enhanced Oil Recovery,” Energy Conversion and
Management, Vol. 33, pp. 579-586, 1992.
5. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: Contribution
of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Houghton,
J.T. et al. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, New Y ork
City (2001).
6. Orr Jr., F.M.: “Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Geologic
Formations,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, September
2004, pp 90-97.
7. Ledley, T.S., E.T. Sundquist, S.E. Schwartz, D.K. Hall,
J.D. Fellows, and T.L. Killeen.: Climate Change and
Greenhouse Gases, EOS, Transactions Am. Geoph. Union,
Vol. 80 No. 39, pp 453-458, 1999.
8. UNFCC: Protocol adopted by the Third Conference of
Parties (COP-3) to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto, Japan, December
1997.
9. Soheil Asgarpour: “An Overview of Miscible Flooding,”
Journal of Canadian petroleum technology, February 1994,
volume 33, No. 2, pp 13-15.
10. EUB. “Alberta’s Reserves 2003 and Supply/Demand
Outlook 2004-2013”, Hill et al., Alberta Energy and
Utilities Board Report, statistical series ST98-2004,
Calgary, Alberta, 2004.
11. McCulloch, R. C., Langton, J. R., Spivak, A.: “Simulation
of high relief reservoirs, Rainbow field, Alberta, Canada.”
paper SPE 2237 presented at SPE 43rd annual meeting held
in Houston, Texas, Sept. 29 Oct. 2, 1968.
12. Chan K.S.: “Water Control Diagnostic Plots,” paper SPE
30775 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
& Exhibition held in Dallas, U.S.A, 22-26 October 1995.
SPE 93472 7

Core Permeablity vs Porosity Cross-Plot

Well 08-13

10000.00

1000.00

100.00

Kmax (md)
10.00 Kmax=10^ 6* phi^ 3.5

1.00

0.10

0.01
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Porosity, fraction

Figure 3-Porosity-Permeability X-plot.

Fig. 1-3D display of the reservoir and the locations of the wells.
Kv vs Kh Core Permeabilities

100000

Sw* PHI & PHI 10000

y = 0.2399x + 0.0519
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
1000 R2 = 1
4660.00

Kv, md
100
4680.00
10

4700.00 Composite 1
Phi
4720.00 0.1
Sw* PHI
4740.00 0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

4760.00 Kh, md
4780.00
Figure 4- Correlation between horizontal and vertical peramability.
4800.00 Top Porosity
4820.00

4840.00
Zama Formation Water Oil System
4860.00
depth

6
4880.00 1
0.9
4900.00
0.8
4920.00
0.7
The Keg Formation
4940.00 0.6
Krw & Kro

0.5
4960.00
0.4
4980.00
0.3

5000.00 0.2
0.1
5020.00
0
5040.00
Intial WOC 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation, fraction
5060.00

5080.00 Figure 5- Relative permeability Data set for oil/water system.

5100.00

Figure 2-Log data available from well 8-13.

8 SPE 93472

Oil Gas Sysytem

Solution Plot, asumming no water drive
1 4000000.00

0.9 3500000.00
0.8
3000000.00
OOIP = 4.7 MM STB
0.7

0.6 2500000.00
Krg & Kro

F/Et, STB
0.5
2000000.00
0.4
1500000.00
0.3

0.2 1000000.00

0.1
500000.00
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.00
Gas Saturation, fraction 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

F, RB

Figure 6- Relative permeability Data set for oil/gas system. Figure 9- OOIP estimation plot assuming no water drive.

Gem PVT Data

Capillary Presuure Data differential L ibration : Dif. L ib. Calc. - After Regression
400 1.25

350
600

Relative Oil Volume (rb/stb)

1.20

Gas-Oil Ratio (scf/stb)

300
500
250 1.15
400
200
Pc, psi

300 150 1.10

200 100
1.05
100 50

0 0 1.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Water saturation % Pressure (psia)
GOR Exp. GOR ROV Exp. ROV

Figure 7- Capillary pressure data set. Figure 10- Gas oil ratio and relative oil volume from PVT analysis
data and generated EOS.

Campbell Plot

16000000

14000000

12000000

10000000
F/Et, STB

8000000

6000000

4000000

2000000

0
00

000

000

000

000

000

000

000
0

5000

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

F, RB

Figure 8- Campbell plot for Quantitative aquifer strength.

Figure 11- History match results, actual vs. simulated (rates and
pressure) for Well 08-13.
SPE 93472 9

600 4

G a s I n jectio n R a te, M M scf/d a y

3.5
500
3

O il R a te, S T B /d a y
400
Oil Rate SC STB/day
2.5
300 Gas injection Rate, MMscf/day 2
1.5
200
1
100
0.5
0 0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Date
Figure 12- Cross-section N-S showing the remaining movable oil
saturation distribution at the end of the history match. Figure 15- Oil rate and gas injection rate for Scheme 2.

450 4
90000 1.00
Gas I njection Rate, MMscf/day

400 3.5 80000

350

Gas Oil Ratio, scf/STB

3 0.80

Water Cut, fractio n

70000
Oil Rate, STB/day

300 Oil Rate SC STB/day

60000 Gas Oil Ratio scft/STB
2.5
250 Water Cut, fraction 0.60
Gas injection Rate, MMscf/day 50000
2
200 40000
1.5 0.40
150 30000
100 1 20000 0.20
50 0.5 10000
0 0 0 0.00
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Date Date

Figure 13- Oil rate and gas injection rate for Scheme 1. Figure 16- Produced gas oil ratio and the water cut performance
Scheme 2.

60000 1.00

50000
Gas Oil Ratio, scf/STB

0.80
Water Cut, fraction

40000 New well location

0.60
30000
0.40
20000
Gas Oil Ratio scft/STB
10000 0.20
Water Cut, fraction
0 0.00
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Date

Figure 14- Produced gas oil ratio and the water cut performance Figure 17-Proposed new well location (02-13).
Scheme 1.
10 SPE 93472

500 4 45000 1.00

450 40000

G a s In jectio n R a te, M M scf/d a y

3.5
400 35000 0.80

G as O il R atio, scf/S T B
3

W ater C u t, fraction
O il R a te, S T B /d a y

350 30000
300 2.5 0.60
25000
250 2
20000
200 Gas Oil Ratio scft/STB 0.40
1.5 15000 Water Cut, fraction
150
Oil Rate SC STB/day 1 10000 0.20
100
Gas injection Rate, MMscf/day 0.5 5000
50
0 0.00
0 0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Date Date

Figure 18- Oil rate and gas injection rate for Scheme 3. Figure 19- Produced gas oil ratio and the water cut performance
Scheme 3.

80000 1.00
800 4
70000
700 3.5
G a s In jectio n R a te, M M scf/d a y

G a s O il R a tio , scf/S T B 0.80

W a te r C u t, fr a ctio n
60000
600 3
O il R a te, S T B /d a y

Oil Rate SC STB/day 50000 0.60

500 2.5
Gas injection Rate, MMscf/day 40000 Gas Oil Ratio scft/STB
400 2 30000 0.40
Water Cut, fraction
300 1.5 20000
0.20
200 1 10000
100 0.5 0 0.00
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
0 0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Date
Date

Figure 20- Oil rate and gas injection rate for Scheme 4. Figure 21- Produced gas oil ratio and the water cut performance
Scheme 4.