IBP1547_12 A COMPARATIVE STUDY FOR SEVERAL WELL CONFIGURATIONS THAT USE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL PRODUCERS IN WATERFLOODING Cindy

P. A. Ruiz1, Jennys L. M. Barillas2

. Copyright 2012, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, held between September, 1720, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event accor ding to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or corr ect the submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Proceedings.

Abstract
Using horizontal wells completed at the top of the pay zone as producers and vertical injectors completed at the bottom, showed increments in terms of oil recovery in 2-D and 3-D laboratory tests, numerical simulation and a pilot project in Canada. This novel process called Toe-To-Heel Waterflooding (TTHW) was developed by A. Turta et al., and it has showed positive results for light heavy oils with a viscosity up to 2,000 cP. However, an oil recovery project mainly depends on the incomes obtained throughout time. The paper presents a simple economic analysis between conventional waterflooding using vertical wells as producers and injectors, and the novel process Toe-To-Heel Waterflooding. The analysis was performed based on the results obtained through a numerical simulation process, the oil used for this purpose and the rocks characteristics belong to a typical northern west Brazilian reservoir. The results obtained showed that for the values used in this analysis, the TTHW process had a light superiority in terms of oil recovery when compared to conventional waterflooding, nevertheless, conventional waterflooding demonstrated to have higher incomes in the economic comparison. Besides that, a third well configuration based on TTHW, proved to have better results by changing the localization of the wells.

1. Introduction
Waterflooding is the most applied method for oil recovery in the world, the main reasons are the low costs involved compared to other methods, and also the facilities of the equipment and supplies needed. Nevertheless, as in every oil recovery method, there are some disadvantages that diminish the productivity of the process. The principal negative factors for conventional waterflooding processes are the reservoir heterogeneity, which causes water channeling; gravity segregation, which causes under-riding of the injected water; and a high water/oil ratio, that means that water will move more easily than oil, this situation aggravates the adverse effects of the first two factors. The novel process known as Toe -to-Heel waterflooding (TTHW) developed by Alex Turta et al., seeks to improve waterflooding by using a horizontal producer well at the top of the pay zone and an injector well completed at the bottom, in the ideal TTHW well pattern, injectors and producers are in a staggered line with the injectors close to the toe of the horizontal producers. This well arrangements objective is to take advantage of the negative factors by turning the oil recovery process from a Long Distance Oil Displacement (LDOD) into a Short Distance Oil Displacement (SDOD). According to A. Turta et al. (2003), the major disadvantage of LDOD is its dependence on the distribution properties, such as permeability and viscosity along the distance between the injection and the production wells. Apparently, by reducing the distance the fluids must travel across is also possible to reduce the effect of the negative factors. The negative effect of the heterogeneity diminish because of the sweep front that depends on the properties behind and immediately ahead of it, the size of this region depends on the transmissibility. Also, the fact that oil would have to travel short distances would make easier to reach the horizontal section of the producing well, with this, oil would be transported through the well instead of the porous media.

______________________________ 1 Master, Petroleum Engineer - UFRN 2 Doctor, Chemical Engineer UFRN

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Different tests had been performed for this process, starting with laboratory tests using a 2-D Hele Shaw model between 1996 and 1998, which simulates a porous media by using two vertical parallel plates separated by a 0.1 mm distance. The results of these tests showed significantly higher oil recovery compared to conventional waterflooding, because of better vertical sweep efficiency obtained. It also showed that the increment of the density contrast between the brine and the oil used improved the oil recovery. Tests of the process using a 3-D laboratory model (Turta et al., 2003) were also performed; the 3-D model consisted of a rectangular vessel containing glass beads that simulated a porous media. For comparative purposes, different TTHW well configurations were used, and also a conventional configuration with vertical producers for comparison. The experiments were conducted at different water injection rates and low pressure. Some of the results obtained involved an improvement in oil recovery, low differential pressure between the injector and producing wells, and that a lower injection rate turns out into a higher oil recovery. In the sequence of tests, a simulation study was carried out using Computer Modelling Groups STARS reservoir simulator (Zhao and Turta, 2004). In order to make a comparative study, two different well patterns were simulated during a 40 year waterflooding process, one was TTHW and the second one was half a nine-spot. In the case of TTHW pattern, the criterion was to produce the reservoir with a conventional waterflooding pattern during ten years and after that time switch to TTHW for the remaining 30 years. At the end of this simulation study, it was concluded that TTHW process is, in general, complementary to conventional waterflooding. Whenever conventional waterflooding does not have a good performance, TTHW process shows advantages over it. A waterflooding recovery process was initiated at the Medicine Hat Glautconitic C reservoir in Canada (Turta et al., 2010), the oil in that reservoir is considered to be medium heavy. The waterflooding project included seven TTHW modules with 10 injectors and 18 horizontal producers out of a total of 52 injectors and 100 producers. By the time the TTHW modules were implemented, the reservoir had gone through conventional waterflooding for about 8 years. None of the TTHW well patterns used was ideal. After seven years of production, the general conclusion was that the TTHW modules had at least a 30% increment in oil recovery when compared to conventional waterflooding patterns.

2. Methodology
The present study was made in two different stages, the first one consisted of a simulation study, and the second stage was a simple economic analysis of the results through NPV (Net Present Value) method. 2.1. Simulation process The simulation process was conducted using the Computer Modelling Groups STARS module. The descriptions of the fluid and the reservoir belong to a northern west Brazilian field, the corresponding data can be found in Table 1. The dimensions of the reservoir used were 773 m x 773 m x 12 m; the number of blocks in the 3-D grid was 25 x 25 x 12. The simulation was performed based on a 20 year period for each one of the well patterns. As the primary production of the reservoir showed a low recovery factor (less than 3%) the waterflooding processes were applied since the beginning. Table 1. Reservoir properties Property Porosity (%) Horizontal Permeability, Kv (mD) Permeability ratio, Kh/Kv Initial oil saturation (So) Reference pressure, kPa Reference temperature, F Rock compressibility (1/kPa) Value 28.00 630.00 0.10 0.71 4707.20 122.00 2.1E-6

The operational parameters for the simulation process were a maximum injection pressure of 256.05 kPa, and a minimum bottom hole pressure of 4.28 kPa. Three different well patterns were used for comparative purposes; the first one was a 5-Spot, composed by 11 producers and 4 injectors. The second one was the TTHW pattern with 3 horizontal producers and two vertical injectors arranged in a staggered line; in this case, different tests were performed in order to optimize the number of wells and the length of the horizontal section of the producer wells. The third well pattern was denominated PH Central, with one 2

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 horizontal producer well across almost the whole reservoir length and six vertical injectors distributed in two groups of three at each side of the producer, this well pattern was created based on TTHW, the final number of wells for this pattern was also the result of an optimization process. Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 indicate the three well patterns early mentioned and their distribution along the reservoir.

Figure 1. 5-Spot well pattern

Figure 2. Toe-To-Heel Waterflooding (TTHW) well pattern

Figure 3. PH Central well pattern

To study the influence of some operational and reservoir parameters, their values were altered, having as a base those in Table 1. These altered parameters included: pay thickness, permeability ratio, horizontal permeability, well configuration and water injection rate. The corresponding data can be found in Table 2. 3

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Table 2. Variation of Operational and Reservoir parameters Mnimum level (-1) 12 0,05 315 5-Spot
3

Parameter Thickness, h (m) Permeability ratio, Kv/Kh Horizontal permeability, Kh (mD) Well pattern Water injection rate, Q (m std/dia)

Intermediate level (0) 0,1 630 PH Central 750

Maximum level (1) 36 0,3 1260 TTHW 1500

375

2.2. NPV analysis The concept of NPV (Net Present Value) was used in order to perform a simple economic evaluation, and by these means to determine which well pattern presented the higher incomes after twenty years of waterflooding process. The NPV (Net Present Value) of a time series of cash flows, both incoming and outcoming, is defined as the sum of the present values of the individual cash flows of the same entity. Each cash inflow/outflow is discounted back to its present value (PV); therefore NPV is the sum of all terms.
n

NPV
t 1

Rt 1 i
t

Ro
(1)

where, t Time of the cash flow i Discount rate (the rate of return that could be earned on an investment in the financial markets with similar risk); the opportunity cost of capital Rt Net cash flow (the amount of cash, inflow minus outflow) at time t. For educational purposes, Ro is commonly placed to the left of the sum to emphasize its role as (minus) the investment. n Total period of time NPV analysis in this case, was based on the perforation costs, the volume of produced oil, the volume of injected water and the volume of produced/treated water. It was assumed that other costs involved in a waterflooding project were the same for all three well patterns.
n

NPV
t 1

( Np Oil. price) ( Winj Inj.Cost 1 i

t

Wp Treat.Cost )

Perf .Costs
(2)

where, i 0.15 Np Volume of oil recovery per year Oil Price Price of a barrel of oil. Winj Total volume of water injected per year. Inj. Cost Price of a barrel of water used for injection. Wp Total volume of water produced and treated per year. Treat. Cost Price of treatment for every unit of volume of produced water n 20 Because the prices of water injection and its treatment suffer variations, three different economic scenarios were created, the values were based on the prices given for the industrial area in the northern west Brazilian region, only the oil price was kept constant, the corresponding data can be found on Table 3. As well patterns tend to be 4

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 arranged in geometrical shapes, each well might be shared for two or more similar patterns depending on its localization, which is the reason why each well was multiplied for a factor depending on its localization inside the well pattern in order to adjust the cost of perforation. The corresponding data can be found on Table 4. Table 3. Economic Scenarios for NPV analysis Oil price R$/Bbl 190,00 190,00 190,00 Water injection price R$/Bbl 1,06 10,60 53,00 Water treatment price R$/Bbl 0,37 3,71 18,55

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Before making a comparison between the NPV results corresponding to TTHW, 5-Spot and PH Central, each one of the well patterns was submitted to an individual NPV optimization; this optimization was made by choosing the water injection rate that obtained the higher income for each economic case. The objective was to later compare the well patterns in terms of income values and not in terms of water injection ratio.

3. Results
3.1. Simulation process The comparisons made between the well patterns of 5-Spot, PH Central and TTHW were performed in terms of voidage replacement. Voidage replacement refers to replacing the volume of fluids produced from the reservoir by injected fluids, in this particular case the reservoir fluid would be oil, because gas was not considered in the simulated model, and the injected fluid would be water. The parameters influencing the result, in order of significance and according to a statistical evaluation, were: water injection rate, horizontal permeability, well configuration and finally permeability ratio. Some interactions between the parameters also showed a significant influence, thats the case of Horizontal Permeability and injection rate, pay thickness and injection rate, permeability ratio and injection rate, well configuration and pay thickness, well configuration and permeability ratio. It was observed that at the same value of voidage replacement, the oil recovery obtained with TTHW well pattern showed a slight superiority when compared to those obtained with a conventional 5-Spot pattern. For the pay zone of 12 m, TTHW well had the higher values of oil recovery water injection rates or 750 and 1.500 m3/day and PH Central had the best result for the injection rate of 350 m 3/day, however, in general the difference between all three well patterns was between 0,2 and 2,5 percentage points. The results for a pay zone of 36 m were alike, it means that all three well patterns obtained values of oil recovery with differences of approximately 1,0 percentage point at the same value of voidage replacement. When comparing the influence of the pay thickness, it was seen that the thicker pay zone of 36 m showed a higher value than the pay zone of 12 m, nevertheless, that difference was about 1,0 percentage point in terms of oil recovery, showing that pay zone thickness might not have a great influence. However, it is highly recommended to perform more and deeper studies about this before making relative final conclusions. 3.2. NPV analysis The first part of the analysis was to determine the perforation costs that were used in equation 2 (See page 3). That cost was related to the perforation and completion of the number of wells for each pattern, this number was in terms of vertical wells or its equivalent. The corresponding data to this calculation can be found in Table 5. Table 4. Economic equivalent of a well price as a function of its localization Localization Corner Side Center Equivalence 1/4 1/2 1

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Table 5. Perforation costs per well pattern Well Configuration 5-Spot PH Central TTHW (A) 13 6 2 (B) 0 1 3 (C) 8 3 1 (D) 0 1 2 (E) 0 2 4 (F) 8 5 5 (G) 1,157 1,157 1,157 (H) 9,256 5,785 5,785

A = Number of vertical wells in the pattern B = Number of horizontal wells in the pattern C = Equivalent number of vertical wells according to its position inside the pattern, see Table 2. D = Equivalent number of horizontal wells according to its position inside the pattern, see Table 2. E = Cost ratio between horizontal and vertical wells, 1 horizontal well = 2 vertical wells. F = Total number of vertical wells and/or its equivalent (F=C+E) G = Price per vertical well (perforated and completed), MM R$ H = Final perforation cost, MM R$ (H=FxG) The second part of the analysis was focused on the optimization of each pattern in terms of economic incomes. For the economic case number one (lowest injection/treatment prices), the corresponding prices were applied to the volumes of oil accumulated, water injected and water produced/treated for the 5-Spot well pattern at the three different water injection ratios, and from there, the water injection rate that reached the higher income after twenty years was chosen. This process was repeated for PH Central and TTHW, choosing the best income of each well pattern for the economic scenario number one. The third part of the analysis involved a comparison between the highest incomes of 5-Spot, PH Central and TTHW, in order to know which pattern would offer the best economic options for the prices of economic scenario number one. The second and third part of the NPV analysis was later repeated for the values corresponding to economic cases two and three. This whole process of optimization attempted to compare all three well patterns in terms of incomes, despite the water injection rate was not the same for all patterns in every economic scenario. The corresponding data to this process can be found in Table 6. Table 6. Summary of results Response Time (years) NPV (MM R$) Economic Scenario Water Injection price (R$/Bbl) Water Treat. price (R$/Bbl) Well Configuration Water Injection Rate (m3std/dia)

Np (m3 std)

Wp (m3 std)

1,06

0,371

10,6

3,710

53,0

18,550

5-Spot PH Central TTHW 5-Spot PH Central TTHW 5-Spot PH Central TTHW

1.500 1.500 750 1.500 1.500 750 750 750 750

623,8 608,9 466,7 521,5 540,8 431,1 338,2 368,6 301,4

13 20 20 2 7 17 2 6 7

706.971,0 730.963,1 687.655,4 586.841,2 669.478,8 674.963,4 510.229,4 631.943,2 579.366,2

6.324.520,0 9.553.045,0 3.113.503,8 398.887,0 2.491.531,8 2.427.122,0 30.390,7 1.002.489,7 399.378,7

3,50 5,16 0,27 0,50 1,57 0,81 0,27 0,81 0,48

The results in Table 6 show that the PH Central well pattern obtained the highest incomes in economic scenarios two and three (intermediate and highest injection/treatment prices). The conventional 5-Spot well pattern obtained the highest income in scenario number one (lowest injection/treatment prices). The TTHW well pattern had the lowest incomes in all three scenarios, showing a considerable difference with those obtained by 5-Spot and PH Central. Although the 5-Spot well pattern did not obtain the best economic results in all scenarios, it did show that its response time in every case was shorter when compared to PH Central (which had the best economic results). As it can be seen in Table 6, the 5-Spot time response in every scenario was almost one third of the response time corresponding to PH Central. The results in Table 6 that show a response time equal to 20 years mean that after twenty years of 6

VRR

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 waterflooding process the income was still growing, however, those increments were less than 1 MM R$ per year for all cases. In the specific case of the economic scenario number two for example, its observed in Figure 4 that the income obtained with PH Central well patterns is 540,8 MM R$ after 7 years of waterflooding process, on the other hand, it was observed that the 5-Spot well pattern obtained 521,5 MM R$ in 2 years of waterflooding process. It means that choosing PH Central over 5-Spot would mean a higher income (plus19,3 MM R$) but it would take 3,5 times than using a 5-Spot well pattern.

570 470

5-Spot (2, 522)

PH Central (7, 541)

NPV (MM Rs)

370 270 170 70 -30 0 5 10 15 20 TTHW - Q=750 m3/day

Time (years)
5-Spot - Q=1500 m3/day PH Central - Q=1500 m3/day

Figure 4. NPV results for economic Scenario 2.

After analyzing all the results obtained in this work, it was seen that horizontal producers do help obtain higher volumes not only of oil but also of water; however, the number and disposition of the wells have a great influence on the results. A good example of such influence is found on the differences between the patterns named TTHW and PH Central, even both of them have the same type of wells the volumes of oil and water recovered from both were quite different, subsequently, those differences had an impact on the economic income obtained (NPV), that placed the PH Central pattern at the top in two of the three economic scenarios and left the TTHW pattern at the bottom in all three economic scenarios. The 5 Spot pattern obtained a second place in terms of NPV, but on the other hand it also showed the best time response, in this sense it turned out to be an attractive choice, reaching equilibrium between income and time when compared to TTHW and PH Central.

4. Conclusions
For the values used in this simulation project: 1. 2. 3. Toe-to-Heel Waterflooding well pattern showed a slight superiority in terms of oil recovery when compared to a conventional 5-Spot well pattern; In general, well patterns using horizontal producing wells, completed at the top of the pay zone showed a better performance in comparison to vertical wells. An economic analysis through NPV, showed that TTHW process presented the lowest incomes compared to a 5-Spot well pattern. It was also seen that although the 5-Spot well pattern obtained the second place in terms of income its response time was approximately a third of the other well patterns. As PH Central well pattern is based on TTHW, it was seen that, for the values used in this study, vertical injectors surrounding a horizontal producer in a transversal position had better results than those in which vertical injectors are in front or the horizontal producer in a staggered line. 7

4.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 5. Although the model used for the simulation process was homogeneous, it was observed that the effect of water conning was present at the well patterns using horizontal producers (TTHW and PH Central), this can be observed on Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6.

Figure 5. Water Saturation map of TTHW well patter at 10 years

Figure 6. Water Saturation map of TTHW well patter at 10 years

Figure 7. Water Saturation map of TTHW well patter at 10 years

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

5. Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Post-graduation Program of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq), and the Computer Modelling Group for their financial and technical support for this research.

6. References
CAERN, Companhia de guas e Esgotos do Rio Grande do Norte, 2011. Jan, 2012 <www.caern.rn.gov.br/.../aplicacao/caern/.../tabela_tarifaria_2011.pdf> JOSHI S. D., Cost/Benefits of Horizontal Wells, SPE 83621, p. 4, may, 2003. RUIZ C. P. A, Estudo Comparativo da Injeo de gua usando Poos Verticais e Horizontais, 2012. TURTA A., HAWKINS B., FISHER D., Successful Testing of Toe-To-Heel Waterflooding in Medicine Hat Glauconitic C Reservoir, CSUG/SPE 136398, 2010. TURTA A., GOLDMAN J., SHINGHAL A., ZHAO L., Toe-To-Heel Waterflooding. Part II 3D Laboratory, SPE 84077-MS, 2003. WESTERMARK R.V., ROBINOWITZ S., WEYLAND H. V., Enhanced Oil Recovery with Horizontal Waterflooding, Osage County, Oklahoma, SPE 89373, 2004. WESTERMARK R.V., SCHMELING J., ROBINOWITZ S., WEYLAND H. V., Increased Production Results From Pilot Horizontal Waterflood in Osage County, SPE 94094, 2005. ZHAO L., TURTA A., Toe-To-Heel Waterflooding: Field Scale Numerical Simulation Study, SPE 89380, 2004.