Investigating the Possibility of Nitrogen

Injection into a Multi-Layer Oil Reservoir by

Numerical Modeling

Tayfun Babadagli
University of Alberta

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 1

 THE FIELD
• Mainly Sandstone
• Light Oil
Location
(45 oAPI, 0.5 cP @ res.
cond.)
• 3 main layers
– Upper Haushi (0.1- 5 mD)
– Sand Drain (100 - 300 mD)
OMAN
– Dolomite Drain
• Natural Water Influx (Sand
Drain watered out)
• Still High Oil In-Place.

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 2

 SAHMAH FIELD
3200

Oil Rate, m 3/day

-Small field: 20 wells 2400

-Small company 1600 2002

-Short term targets 800

-Low investment 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time, days

• Sandstone
• Oil: 45 oAPI, 1 cP • Two sandstone layers:
• Low permeability (1 mD), RF=10%
• Natural water influx
• High permeability (150 mD), RF=70%
• Deep: 3,250m
3
Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 4
 Cap-Rock

Cap-Rock
U1-U3
U1-U3
145 – 180 m

U4

U5

U6
Sand Drain/Dolomite Drain Crossflow

Aquifer
Support

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 5

 DATA FOR THE SIMULATION

Permeability : Well tests

FWL = OWC = 3220 mss
PVT – Relative permeability from lab measurements

CONSIDERED:
Production constraints
Aquifer properties
•Different sizes
•Entire attachment or partial
•50 stb/day/psia

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 6

 MODEL
•Edge water drive in the NW part (W13, 16, 19, 20, 21)
•Permeability distribution is the key: Different realizations
•58x42x6 grids
•180 runs for history matching
•Well and neighboring well block permeability
•Size and injectivity index of the aquifer
•Different bottomhole injection pressure constraints
•Relative permeability to both phases

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 7

 WHOLE FIELD PERFORMANCE
3200 400

Water Rate, m 3/day

Sim ulation Sim ulation
History
Oil Rate, m3/day
History
2400 300

1600 200

800 100

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Tim e, days Tim e, days

300000
Sim ulation
240000 History
Gas Rate, m3/day

180000

120000

60000

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time, days
Ti m e , d ays

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 8

 W13 Oil Production Profile W13 Saturation Profile

Oil Satuaration, fraction

1000 1
History
Oil Rate, m3/day
800 Sim ulation 0.8

600 0.6

400 0.4
U6
200 0.2 U5
U4
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Tim e, days Time, days

12
History

Water Rate, m3/day

9 Sim ulation

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
W4 Water Production Profile Tim e, days

19 out of 21 wells matched in terms of OIL, GAS and WATER rates

Other two wells produce from a deeper formation.
Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 9
 AQUIFER ATTACHMENTS

•Aquifer attachment to U4, U5, and U6

•Peripheral aquifer (x)
•Attachment to the NW tip of the reservoir ( )
600
Sim.- N W Tip A q.
Water Rate, m3/day

500 Sup .
Hist o ry
400

300

200

10 0

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Time, days

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 10

 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DUMPING IN W3 AND W6

•W3: Injection Well, W6: Injection Well (to support W17)

•Re-enter another shut-in well: W10

600
Field Oil Rate, sm3/day

500
400
300 S3 & S6 at 350 barsa
200 W5, W15, and W22
S3 at 350 barsa
100
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 W6 supported dolomite drain
Time, days

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 11

 DEVELOPMENT PLAN RECOMPLETION OF W10
S1
3215-3220
S3
3210-3215
N S-19 S-14 S5
3205-3210
S7
S-18
3200-3205 S-16
S9
3195-3200 S-11 S11
S-21

3190-3195 S13
S-13

3185-3190 75 S-17
S15

3180-3185
W22 RESPONSE S-9 S17
Oil Rate, m3/day

S-20
S19
3175-3180
50 S-4 S-6 S21
3170-3175
S23
S-1
3165-3170 S10
S-8 HW N E S25
S-7
3160-3165 25 S10 HW E
S-22
S27
S10 V S29
3155-3160
S-12
S10 - ShutS-5 S31
3150-3155
S-3
0 S33
3145-3150 S-10

3140-3145
6000 7000 8000 S-15 9000 10000 S35
S37
3135-3140
S39
3130-3135 Time, days S41
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

28

31

34

37

40

43

46

49

52

55

58
Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 12
 PROBLEM
• High OIP (Tight Upper Haushi)
• Lowering Production
• Owned by a small oil company
• Limited investment opportunity
• Deep reservoir
• Low injectivity due to low permeability
• High reservoir pressure to overcome

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 13

 PROBLEM SOLUTION

Need to increase production EOR (GAS INJECTION)

Nitrogen
Miscible Gas
Air

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 14

 NITROGEN AIR

• Immiscible • Immiscible
(Viscous Displacement) (Viscous Displacement)
• Miscible • Oxidation
• Pressure Maintenance • Combustion
• Miscible

• Higher cost • Low Cost

• Safe • Safety Risk

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 15

 PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION
•EXPERIMENTAL
Injectivity (nitrogen threshold pressure)
Viscous (immiscible) Displacement
Gas-Oil Relative Permeability

•NUMERICAL
Performance of Immiscible Displacement
Well Performances
Best Injection Plan
Pressure Distribution

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 16

 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 17

 INJECTION EXPERIMENTS
UPPER HAUSHI
(Unswept tight sand)
So = 100 %
Nitrogen (Nitrogen injection only)
Recovery = 41-43 %

STEP - I

SAND DRAIN
So = 100 %
(Swept high perm. Sand)
Water
(Waterflooding + Nitrogen)
STEP - II
Waterflooding Rec. = 72-75 %
S o = 25 % Nitrogen Rec. = 6-8 %
Swi = 75 %
Nitrogen
Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 18
 Nitrogen injection into tight zone
Oil Recovery, decimal (OOIP)

Injection Pressure, psi

19
Nitrogen injection into waterflooded zone
Oil Recovery, decimal (OOIP)

Injection Pressure, psi

Water Injection
(q=1 cc/min)

Nitrogen injection
started

20
 INJECTION EXPERIMENTS &
MEASUREMENT OF GAS OIL RELATIVE PERMEABILITY

STEP - I
•Initially 100 % oil saturated Sand Drain
sample
So = 100 % •Waterflooding, 75% of oil is displaced.
Water •Rock sample restored to the original stage of
the reservoir (flooded out be strong water
influx).

STEP - II
• Sample with 25 % oil +75 % water (Swi) is
nitrogen flooded
S o = 25 % • 6-8% more oil (of OOIP) is recovered.
Swi = 75 % • Total recovery: 81-83 % of OOIP.
Nitrogen • This data was used for the generation of
relative permeability curves.

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 21

 (GAS) NITROGEN-OIL RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES COREY
1
0.9
0.8
kro k ro  (S )* 4

2
0.7
 So 
0.6 k rg 
 1  
 1  S * 
2

0.5  S wi 
kr

0.4
0.3
0.2 krg
So
S 
0.1 *

1  S wi
0
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1

Sg

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 22

 NUMERICAL STUDY

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 23

 INJECTOR : WELL #16

WELL #13
200
Oil Production, m3 / day

150

100

50

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (days)

Base Case (No injection) Inj. Pres. = 250 bars

Inj. Pres. = 350 bars Inj. Pres. = 450 bars
Inj. Pres. = 550 bars

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 24

 Field scale simulation
One converted injector
1000
Oil Production, m3 / day

900
8250 psi
800
700 6750 psi
600
5250 psi
500
3750 psi
400
Base case
300
200
100
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Time (days)
25
Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 26
 CONCLUSIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 27

 NITROGEN INJECTION PERFORMANCE
RESULTS
•Considerable recovery estimated by numerical model
from all layers. Technically successful.

•Ultimate recovery from numerical model agrees with the

experimental (6 to 10 % additional recovery by nitrogen
in Sand Drain).

•Nitrogen (generation) is expensive. High pressures

(compressor power for 4000-5000 psi injection pressure)
needed to overcome reservoir pressure
(min. injection pressure was found to be 250 bars)

•Economics of the project should be reviewed.

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 28
 NITROGEN vs AIR INJECTION

•Nitrogen reflects the worst case scenario

(only immiscible displacement) but technically successful

•More recovery from air injection is expected

(oxidation, combustion, immiscible &miscible disp.)

•Air injection is much more economical

•But, if not consumed totally in the reservoir, oxygen causes

danger in the production wells

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 29

 OVERALL EVALUATION (FEASIBILITY)
OF AN EOR PROCESS
•TECHNICAL
Geological (static) model-uncertainty
DONE

Data preparation (Petrophysics, PVT)

Selection of proper model/description of the
physics of the process

•ECONOMIC
NEXT STEP

Capital investment
NPV Analysis
Operational cost
Time to recovery oil Managerial concern

•SAFETY / ENVIRONMENTAL / LEGAL

Dr. Tayfun Babadagli, Univ. of Alberta 30