Anda di halaman 1dari 7

SPE 93858

Integrated Management of Water, Lean Gas, and Air Injection: The Successful
Ingredients to EOR Projects on the Mature Handil Field
M.W. Duiveman, SPE, H. Herwin, SPE, and P. Grivot, SPE, Total E&P Indonsie

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.


This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 5 7 April 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The future of large very mature oilfields relies upon the
successful application of EOR techniques. This paper
discusses from the Handil field case, the more useful concept
and practices that are applicable to optimize oil recovery in a
multi-layer, multi reservoir waterflooded field.
The Handil field, discovered in 1974, is a giant mature
oilfield located in the Mahakam Delta, Indonesia. The field
was developed using conventional oil recovery methods:
natural depletion and peripheral water injection and produced
a maximum of 200,000 BOPD in the late seventies. Currently,
the oil recovery is around 50% with a 15,000 BOPD
production at high watercut.

was temporary suspended due to injector well problems after 6


months of injection. The project was comprehensively studied
by compositional and thermal simulation and intends to restart
early 2005.
Integrated studies of the Handil reservoirs provided indepth understanding of EOR mechanisms. This resulted in the
ability to better model field performance and to forecast
tertiary oil production more accurately.
Introduction
The Handil field, discovered in 1974, is a giant mature
oilfield located in the Mahakam Delta of East Kalimantan,
Indonesia. The field comprises over 500 hydrocarbon
accumulations in structurally stacked and compartmentalized
deltaic sands. Hydrocarbon accumulations are found at depths
as shallow as 300 mSS and continue down to 3000 mSS. The
structure of the field is a simple anticline, 10 km long and 4
km wide and is divided in a northern and southern
compartment by an east-west fault (Fig. 1).

HANDIL FIELD
SSW - NNE STRUCTURAL CROSS
0

50

The Handil EOR lean gas injection project was started in


November 1995 on five reservoirs and following its positive
result was extended with six reservoirs in 2000. In 2003, an
integrated study on the largest EOR reservoir was performed
to assess the projects performance. This included 3D
geomodeling, reservoir simulation and chemical tracer
injection. The study permitted to track the main effects of the
gas injection, to identify bypassed oil areas and to define
reservoir management guidelines for the other lean gas
injection reservoirs.

R0-09
100

150

OIL
POOL

R1
R4-3

200

2. WATER

R 16

250

300

R 16

GAS
POOL
250

350
500

GAS
OIL
WATER

Figure 1 Handil cross section

As field scale application of the gas injection technique is


not sustainable since the gas is exportable, two other
techniques are currently being evaluated as an alternative.
Second Contact Water Displacement (SCWD) is planned
to be introduced on the maturest lean gas injection reservoirs.
Simulation studies forecast potential for this technique which
also allows decreasing the volumes of injected gas.
An Air injection pilot on a waterflooded reservoir was
started in 2001. First results are encouraging but the injection

The reservoirs are of excellent quality with permeabilities


ranging from 200 mD to 2000 mD in the Shallow zones and
10 mD to 500 mD in the so-called Main zone, which is located
between 1500 mSS and 2200 mSS. The deeper zones between
2200 mSS and 3000 mSS contain mostly gas and decrease in
quality with depth to permeabilities of several mDs. The oil
accumulations vary largely in size between 100 MMSTB and
1 MMSTB and contain a light oil with viscosities between 0.5

SPE 92858

200,000
START WATER INJECTION

180,000

2nd IOR

56 Water Injector
160,000

1st IOR
START GAS LIFT

O il ra te (b o p d )

140,000

WI
primary

120,000

Nov 1995
START 1st GI

100,000

Jan 2000
START 2nd GI

80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000

J-03

J-02

J-01

J-00

J-99

J-98

J-97

J-96

J-95

J-94

J-93

J-92

J-91

J-90

J-89

J-88

J-87

J-86

J-85

J-84

J-83

J-82

J-81

J-80

J-79

J-78

J-77

J-76

J-75

J-74

Date

Figure 2 Production history per recovery mechanism

Natural depletion and water injection phase


The Shallow zone of the Handil field which contains 160
reservoirs, experiences a strong aquifer drive and were very
efficiently swept by it. The Shallow zone has maintained its
initial reservoir pressure and today an average recovery factor
of 53% is achieved. No water injection was therefore applied
on these zones. On the Handil Main zone, a total of 81

250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
J-74
J-75
J-76
J-77
J-78
J-79
J-80
J-81
J-82
J-83
J-84
J-85
J-86
J-87
J-88
J-89
J-90
J-91
J-92
J-93
J-94
J-95
J-96
J-97
J-98
J-99
J-00
J-01
J-02
J-03

Field development and production history


In 1975 oil production started under natural depletion and
peaked production of around 200.000 BOPD in 1977. In
September 1978 water injection was introduced as an
additional recovery mechanism and a plateau production of
around 160.000 BOPD could be maintained until 1985, except
for a one year drop due to OPEC restrictions. Infill drilling
continued after 1985 as the field experienced a steady decline
in production with increasing watercut. Today a total number
of 383 wells have been drilled in the field with an average
well spacing coming down to 300 m.
The first tertiary recovery project was introduced in the
Handil field in November 1995 with the start of lean gas
injection in 5 large Handil reservoirs with recovery factors
above 55%. This project boosted the production of the 5
reservoirs and altered the overall decline rate of the field. Due
to its success the project was extended in 2000 with another 6
reservoirs which resulted in over 25% of the fields OIIP
being under a tertiary recovery mechanism. Today the fields
average recovery factor has reached 50% and the daily oil
production has stabilized around 15,000 BOPD. Figure 2
shows how the different production mechanisms contribute to
the total fields production. Today 25% of the production
originates from reservoirs under tertiary gas injection.
As a further extension of the gas injection project is
economically unattractive, following the opportunities to
currently export the gas, a pilot project, injecting air instead of
gas, is on-going on one reservoir in the Handil field in order to
pursue the tertiary recovery on other parts of the field. In
addition, Second Contact Water Displacement (SCWD) will
be introduced on the maturest lean gas injection reservoirs in
order to maximize further the recovery on these reservoirs.

reservoirs were submitted to water injection of the peripheral


type. This resulted in an excellent sweep due to the high
reservoir permeabilities of the Main zone reservoirs, the
favorable mobility ratio and the structural dips ranging from
5 to 12.
Recovery factors of the reservoirs under water injection
have now reached 51% in average. A maximum of 220.000
BWPD was injected in 1988, which decreased to 60.000
BWPD today on the 42 reservoirs remaining under WI (Fig.
3). The cumulative water injection volume has exceeded 850
MMSTB.

W ater injection rate (BWPD)

1.0 cP. The reservoirs are waterwet and contain an


undersaturated oil with gascaps of varying size.

Date

Figure 3 Water injection history

EOR by Lean Gas injection


Extensive studies were carried out to evaluate the possible
applications of EOR techniques1,2 in the Handil field and reinjection of associated gas was found to be the economically
most attractive option3.
The injection of a lean gas in an oil reservoir is primarily
an immiscible displacement process which, when the reservoir
has already undergone waterflooding, becomes a Double
Displacement Process (DDP), also called Gravity Assisted
Tertiary Gas injection4. The remaining oil in these reservoirs
is located in: An oil rim trapped above the structurally highest
production row, as bypassed oil down dip in the reservoir and
as residual oil (Sorw) trapped after the flooding with water.
The crestal injection of gas intends to sweep back the
remaining mobile oil towards the producer wells (gasflooding)
and secondly, re-mobilize part of the capillary trapped oil (at
Sorw). Microscopically, this remobilization is explained as
isolated oil globules spreading out and reconnecting to form
oil films when gas enters the pores and occupies the center of
the pore. Drainage of the oil takes place via the connected
oilfilms and, under the influence of gravity, forms an oilbank.
Residual oil can be reduced, by this remobilization process, to
very low values (Sorwg). This would require, however, - due to
the slow drainage after the first gasbreakthrough at the
producers - a very long gas injection period (Fig. 4).

SPE 92858

After Gas Injection

After Water-flooded

Oil-rim

Gravity drainage
Sorw
Sorw
Sorw ~ 25%

Sorwg = 10 20
12000

Figure 4 Gravity drainage mechanism

Gas
Injection

10000

90

High Gas Export

80
70

8000

Q o (b o pd )

Gas injection started in 1995 via two gas injector wells on


5 large Handil reservoirs with initial oil in place of 285
MMSTB. The injection rate on the 5 reservoirs was 55
MMSCFD (or 5.5% of the hydrocarbon pore volume per year)
and intended to balance the fluid off take in order to maintain
the reservoir pressure. Water injection was stopped. All
reservoirs were divided in production rows with row 1 being
the closest production row to the gas injector i.e. structurally
the highest. (Fig. 5)

100

60
6000

50
40

4000

30

Q g i (M M scfd )

Sorw

After the start of the gas injection, a rapid response in


production behavior of the EOR reservoirs has been observed
and the rate of decline was significantly improved. Figure 7
shows the production of the 5 reservoirs versus a, so called
baseline, representing the hypothetical production decline of
the reservoirs when water injection would have continued.

20

2000

10
0
Ja n

-90 a n -91 a n -92 a n -93 a n -94 a n-95 a n -96 a n -97 a n -98 a n -99 a n -00 a n -01 a n-02 a n -03 a n -04
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J

1st phase

WI Decline

Gas injection rate

Expected WI

Figure 7 Incremental production by lean gas injection


North-South Cross
Section
GAS INJ.
Production Row 3

Production Row 2

Production Row 1

Figure 5 Production row distribution

Gradually, gasbreakthrough would occur along the production


rows and producer wells would be shut in whenever oil
production decreased below the economic limit or the GOR
became excessive. Figure 6 shows a typical gas injection
response observed on one of the row 1 wells in which the oil
production has stabilized, the BSW decreases and the GOR
and the WHFP gradually increase.
Gas Injection

OIL

GOR

BSW
WHFP

Figure 6 Typical well response EOR well

The incremental oil, resulting from the injection of lean


gas, was estimated to be 3.8 MMSTB at the end of 2003 on a
total production of 6.5 MMSTB from these reservoirs. A
production improvement of 140% by lean gas injection has
therefore been achieved corresponding to an incremental oil
recovery of 2.3 %.
Given this success, 6 additional reservoirs with 170
MMSTB of OIIP were included in the project in January 2000.
One additional injector well was drilled and use was made of
the available compressor capacity to increase the injection to
90 MMSCFD.
Incremental production from this second phase has, so far,
been limited to 0.6 MMSTB only. Limited volumes of gas
available for injection due to export demand, especially in
2002, is the main cause of the small benefit of this phase.
Locally, however, this phase proved the efficiency of the
technique as well.
EOR optimization
To further optimize the reservoir management of EOR
reservoirs and improve the understanding of the gas injection
patterns, the intra reservoir connectivities and the sweep
efficiency, an integrated study was launched in 2003 on one of
the largest reservoirs under EOR. The study included a
complete review of the geological model of this reservoir
based on facies recognition on the logs and using the
geometries of the sandbodies. A 3D geomodel was followed
by a dynamic synthesis and combined in a reservoir
simulation. A chemical tracer injection project was launched
at the same time in order to track the gas injection patterns and
the sandbody connectivity.
The study also intended to clarify the deficit in incremental
production compared to the initial prediction. Although,
highly successful, the 2.3% incremental recovery factor after 8
years was below the initially anticipated 5% derived from
simulations performed before the start of the project.

SPE 92858

The study confirmed the efficacy of the processes, where very


low residual oil saturations are achieved around the first row
producers and remaining mobile oil areas have been swept by
the gas. The tracer injection project identified poorly
connected areas in the north-east of the reservoir and a
disconnected south-eastern compartment and allowed the
definition of additional development for these areas (Fig 8).
The tracer breakthroughs also permit a refinement in the
modelization of the displacement of the oilbank.

GAS INJ.

GAS INJ.
So ~ Sorg
Poor connected

Close
GASINJECTOR
ROW 1 PROD.
ROW 2 PROD.
ROW 3. PROD.

Figure 10 Reduced cycling by closing high GOR wells

Although this induces a temporary decrease in oil production


(when the first row producers are closed), this is largely
compensated by the subsequent gain from the second and third
row producers. It was clearly demonstrated that by
maintaining a cycling level at 30% instead of 60% the initially
anticipated 5% incremental production could have been
achieved (Fig. 11) with the same injected volume of gas. In
other words, too low residual oil saturations have been
pursued around the first row producers and should have been
sacrificed to achieve lower oil saturations further down dip the
reservoir.
Handil Tertiary Gas Injection

Disconnected

(Prediction vs. Actual)


Actual

Optimized
management-Model
Prediction
Initial
Prediction-Model
Ideal
2 per. Mov. Avg.
(Prediction)
Actual
Production

6.00%

1995

2003

5.1 %

5.00%

One of the most interesting phenomena identified during


the study was the effect of the so called gascycling, which is
defined as the ratio between the produced gas and the injected
gas over the gas injection period. The average gascycling
throughout the project was 60% (Fig.9).

A d d it io n a l R e c o v e ry

End of History Matching

Water Flooded Condition / GI Project Start Up

Figure 8 Saturation map after waterflooding and after 8 years GI

4.00%

4.75 %

3.00%

2.00%

2.5 %
1.00%

0.00%
01/11/1995

31/10/1996

31/10/1997

31/10/1998

31/10/1999

30/10/2000

30/10/2001

30/10/2002

Date

Gas cycling (%)


70

Figure 11 Optimized versus achieved incremental oil production

60
50
19-0N

20

5 reservoirs

10
0
0

year

Figure 9 Gascycling history

This relatively high value was mainly due to the high GORs of
the first row producer wells. These wells produced still
considerable amounts of oil and thus were kept open in spite
their very high GOR. The simulation model indicated that the
gas would be used more efficiently by closing these high GOR
wells at an earlier stage in the project. This would have
allowed more gas to reach the regions around the second and
third row producers in order to sweep the remaining mobile oil
and allow remobilization and oil production by gravity
drainage from these areas. The small gravity drainage oil still
being produced by the first row producers will continue and in
time also be displaced towards the second row (Fig. 10).

An optimum GOR for the closure of producer wells was


determined at 20,000 scf/bbl for this reservoir but is probably
strongly linked to the injection capacity available and the
number of producer wells available in the following down dip
row. The application of this optimized reservoir management
strategy has already been rewarded by a substantial
improvement of the reservoirs production (Fig. 12).
No Injection
Period

Gas Injection
2000
1800

35

Reduced
Cycling

1600

30

25

actual

1400
1200

20

1000
15

800
600

Q
g
i, M
M
s
cfd

30

Q
o
,b
o
p
d

Target (monitoring policy)

40

10

400
5
200

WI Decline

0
5
-9
v
o
N

0
6
-9
pr
A

6
-9
ep
S

7
-9
b
Fe

7
l-9
Ju

7
c-9
e
D

8
-9
ay
M

8
-9
ct
O

9
-9
ar
M

9
-9
g
u
A

00
nJa

0
-0
n
Ju

0
-0
v
o
N

1
-0
pr
A

1
-0
ep
S

2
-0
b
Fe

2
l-0
Ju

2
c-0
e
D

3
-0
ay
M

3
-0
ct
O

months
W I Decli ne

Actua l

Q-GI

Figure 12 Production increase after gascycling reduction

Second Contact Water Displacement


As the migration due to gravity drainage is a very slow
process, especially after production of the oilbank and
gasbreakthrough at the producers, a Second Contact Water
Displacement (SCWD) can be introduced to shorten the
operating time of the gas injection. Laboratory experiments

SPE 92858

and simulation studies by Lepski et al.5 and Ren et al.6


indicated that incremental oil could be recovered by a second
flooding of the reservoir by water after gasbreakthrough at the
producer wells has occurred. Part of the, through gas injection,
remobilized oil would then be swept by water, instead of being
produced by the slow gravity drainage process. As the gas is
trapped at the center of the pore space and oil exists as an oil
film, part of the oil will not be trapped again but displaced by
the water towards the producers4. The efficiency of this
process depends on the volume of the pore space being
occupied by gas and thus on the irreducible gas saturation and
the reservoir pressure. High irreducible gas saturations are
thus more favorable and strong repressurization of the
reservoir by the SCWD should be avoided.
In the Handil EOR optimization study the influence of the
Lean Gas injection and SCWD have been evaluated taking
into account the limited availability of injection gas in order to
determine the economic most attractive scenario. On the
modeled large EOR reservoir, it was concluded that the
remaining mobile oil around the third row producers proved
difficult to reach by gas injection, even with very large
quantities of injection gas available. Restart of peripheral
water injection is therefore planned in the near future to sweep
the remaining mobile oil in these regions and provide
additional pressure support for the reservoir. Gas injection will
at the same time continue to sweep and remobilize oil around
the second production row. After gasbreakthrough and high
GORs on most of the second row producers, gas injection will
be stopped and the area will be exposed to SCWD by the
arrival of the down dip injection water. Gas will be produced
back from the reservoir to be exported, while water will
continue to sweep the gas invaded zones. Although the SCWD
is beneficial for oil production, it is detrimental for the gas
recovery whenever additional volumes of gas are being
trapped by the SCWD. Economic evaluations will therefore
determine when to stop the SCWD. The additional oil
recovery from this reservoir resulting from the restart of water
injection is estimated at 0.8 MMSTB, equaling 0.8% of
incremental recovery.
For EOR reservoirs where no second row exists or already
has been flooded, immediate SCWD can be introduced again
depending on the loss in recoverable gas reserves.

consumed and CO2 and CO are formed. The gas, formed by


the remaining N2 from the air and the combustion gasses, is
called flue gas (typically 85% of N2, 13% of CO2, and 2% of
CO) and sweeps the reservoir downstream (Fig 13). Except
flue gas sweeping and oil remobilization, field repressurization, oil swelling (from generated CO2) and
viscosity reduction due to thermal effects and CO2 dissolution
play a secondary role.
Air injection well

Combustion front
T = 200 - 400 oC

Flue gas sweep @ T res


(no thermal effect)

Oil & steam banks


(small thermal effect)
Zone swept the combustion front (Sor low)

Initiation of combustion reactions

Figure 13 Air injection process in light oil reservoirs

Air injection pilot project


A waterflooded reservoir of limited extension (OIIP = 6
MMSTB) and isolated from other Handil reservoirs was
selected as a pilot reservoir. Recovery factor on this reservoir
by waterflooding was 26% but all reservoir wells were already
watered out. A crestal producer well was worked-over to an
air injector well and two other Handil wells were transformed
to respectively Observer and Producer well. The Observer
well intended to monitor the flue gasses, and eventually the
arrival of the burning front, halfway to the Producer (Fig 14.).
An air compressor was installed at the central processing
facilities with a maximum capacity of 3 MMSCFD. Two flank
water injectors were also activated to contain the injected air
and the combustion front.
HL 175

WI

INJECTOR

METER

OBSERVER
- 1840

HL 175

HLB 173

INJECTOR

PRODUCER

OBSERVER
HW 180

- 1860

PRODUCER

GOC

waterflooded
WI

Air injection the future of EOR in Handil?


As mentioned before, further enlargement of the lean gas
injection project appears unattractive as the injection gas can
also be exported. A replacement in the form of air seems an
attractive alternative due to the free availability of the
injectant. The Handil oil and reservoir characteristics were
concluded promising and a pilot project was organized.
Air injection in waterflooded light oil reservoirs as present
in Handil is basically a classical gas injection in which the
same mechanisms are active as in the lean gas injection
technique. The main difference relates to the requirement that
the oxygen, present at 21% in the air, should be consumed by
oxidation reactions in order not to appear at the producer wells
for safety reasons. If reservoir and fluid conditions are
favorable, a high temperature thermal front (200C 400C)
will auto-ignite when injecting air. The oxygen will be

Producer well

Observer well

N1

- 1880

HU 086

- 1900

- 1920
0

10
H 397

1km

Figure 14 Air injection reservoir

Extensive laboratory studies on oil saturated cores


performed at reservoir conditions with reservoirs fluids
concluded the suitability of the Handil reservoir for air
injection. Auto-ignition occurred at 135C and a stable front
displacement at 270C was achieved. Efficient Carbon Oxides
generation was measured (13% CO2, 3% CO and 84% N2),
effectively sweeping the cores. The measured oxygen uptake

SPE 92858

FLUE GAS AFTER 0.5 Y

INJECTOR WELL

OBSERVER WELL

PRODUCER WELL

Figure 15 Flue gas and Temperature front movement

Although final incremental oil from the one producer well


will be limited, a maximum oil production from the Producer
well of 160 BOPD is expected with decreasing BSW and
strongly increasing GOR (Fig. 16)

GOR
Qo

BSW

Air injection start up


In July 2001 Air injection was started for the first time and
a total volume of 200 MMSCF of air was successfully injected
for 174 days. Initial injectivity in the injector well was low
due to poor connectivity of the wellbore to the reservoir, but
was lost completely several times in the months after start up.
This decrease of injectivity was thought to be linked to the
initiation of the burning front, the reservoirs repressurization
and the blocking of the formation by corrosion debris.
The remedial action chosen of injecting inhibited water
into the air injector well, improved injectivity only temporary
as severe corrosion of the tubing forced a permanent stop of
the injection in December 2001. Clean out of the tubing,
strong improvement of the injectivity and a review of the
project to avoid similar problems when re-starting, have been
carried out since and air injection is planned to be resumed
end 2004.
Results achieved so far are encouraging. Although
Producer and Observer well have not been produced yet, a repressurization of the reservoir has been achieved (Fig. 17) and
a start of ignition was proven by a strong increase in
temperature in the air injector well.
17-3d S

Datum (mss) = 1880

Figure 16 Producer well production profile prediction from


thermal simulation

2900

6000

2850
5000

2800

4000

p re s s u re (p s ia )

2700
2650

3000

2600
2000

2550
2500

1000

2450
2400

9 -J a n -0 3

8 -F e b -0 3

1 0 -D e c -0 2

1 1 -O c t-0 2

1 0 -N o v -0 2

1 1 -S e p -0 2

1 3 -J u l-0 2

1 2 -A u g -0 2

1 3 -J u n -0 2

1 4 -A p r-0 2

1 4 -M a y -0 2

1 5 -M a r-0 2

1 4 -J a n -0 2

1 3 -F e b -0 2

1 5 -D e c -0 1

1 6 -O c t-0 1

1 5 -N o v -0 1

1 6 -S e p -0 1

1 8 -J u l-0 1

1 7 -A u g -0 1

1 8 -J u n -0 1

1 9 -M a y -0 1

Reservoir monitoring
Detailed reservoir monitoring in air injection projects is of
the utmost importance in order to asses the behavior and
efficiency of the ongoing processes. Particularly in (partly)
waterflooded reservoirs were oil saturations are non-uniform
and locally as low as the Sorw, the auto-ignition and stability of
the combustion front are uncertain parameters.
The main tool to monitor the behavior of the combustion
front is the composition of the flue gasses from the Observer
and Producer well. Efficient CO2/CO generation indicates a
stable displacing front whereas O2 breakthrough shows total or
local disruption of the combustion front. The temperature in
the injector well will also provide information on the initial
ignition of a combustion front. A detailed monitoring plan was
drawn up for the Handil project with permanent installation of

2750

W a te r in j. ra te (b w p d ) / A ir in j. ra te (M s c fd )

TEMPERATURE AFTER 1.5 Y

pressure/temperature gauges in the Producer and Observer


well and intensive gas and fluid sampling when respectively
testing and producing the Observer and Producer well. A O2
analyzer will monitor a breakthrough of oxygen permanently
during all operations on the wells and every 2 months the
temperature in the injector well will be measured to conclude
on ignition and front displacement. Permanent temperature
measurement via for instance fiber optics were preferred but
rejected due to heavy work over requirement. Reference RST
logs were run on 2 wells to be able to conclude on an altered
saturation profile after oil production has substantially
increased.
The monitoring will also be supported by a constant update
of the thermal model in order to maximize the insight of the
reservoirs behavior. The model will also be enhanced by
more detailed information about the influence of the higher
water saturation to be assessed by additional laboratory core
experiments.

1 0 -M a r-0 3

and combustion parameters were also calculated and modeled


by a simple kinetic model in order to be used in numerical
simulations with a thermal model7,8
A compositional simulation model of the reservoir was
constructed and later transformed to a thermal simulation
model. These models provided detailed insight in key
parameters of the air injection process. The movement of the
combustion front was estimated at 80 m/year and first
breakthrough of flue gasses were expected at the Producer
well 4 to 6 months after the start of air injection (Fig. 15).

HN 183 OBS WELL

HLB173 WI WELL

HW 290 PROD WELL

HN 188 WI WELL

initial Pres 2670 PSI

Qwi (bpd)

Air inj. Rate (Mscfd)

Figure 17 Repressurizaton of the air injection reservoir during


first injection period

SPE 92858

Integrated approach
Even though recovery of the Handil field has reached over
50%, the quantity of remaining hydrocarbons in place still
represent a large potential to be valued. Accessing this
residual oil at the most cost effective way is the main
challenge. Experience has shown that non miscible
hydrocarbon gas injection is a valuable EOR technique for a
mature field such as Handil.
In the Handil situation and for most of tertiary gas
injection projects, the gas supply is inadequate to apply the
gravity drainage at full field scale within reasonable time
scale. Gas dedicated for injection can also be valorised
through direct export and installed compression capacities are
always limited. For a multi-reservoir mature field, practical
implementation of EOR techniques at field scale requires an
integrated approach to take into account reservoir, surface and
economic constraints. Only the improvement of our capacity
of anticipation will allow timely solutions to be found and
implemented. The key is to be able to predict the ratio of oil
gain to injection volume (whether gas, air or water) on a
reservoir by reservoir basis and then at field scale. Once a
choice is made on the recovery process, the optimization of
the injection process needs a precise characterization of the
reservoir coupled with reliable flow models.
On Handil two techniques have been selected as an
alternative or a continuation of tertiary gas injection: Second
Contact Water Displacement (SCWD) and Air injection.
Conclusions
Non miscible hydrocarbon gas injection is a valuable EOR
technique for a mature field such as Handil whereas air
injection and Second Contact Water Displacement are
promising as an alternative or continuation.
Key success factors for implementing at full field scale
EOR are the following:
1. Comprehensive integrated studies of the Handil
reservoirs provided in-depth understanding of EOR
mechanisms.
2. Modelization ability to anticipate the future and forecast
tertiary oil production more accurately.
3. Reactive reservoir monitoring to optimize the efficiency
of the injection
4. Efficient management of available resources and
existing constraints which can be achieved only through a
continuous multi-disciplinary effort.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank TOTAL INDONESIE, BP MIGAS and
INPEX for the permission to present this paper. Special thanks
to Mrs. A. Le-Flem, Mr. M. Muller and G. Fontaine for their
contribution to reservoir modeling and simulation and Mr. P.
Ruelland and Mr. A. Wiweko for their geological work.
References
1. Grivot P.G., Bouvier L. , Fournier J. and Silverii A., Residual oil
saturation and multiphase relative permeabilities measurements
on a water-wet sandstone reservoir and a limestone reservoir of
mixed wettability. SCA 9503, the 1995 International
Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, San Francisco,
September 1995.

2. Chalier G., Giry, K., Madaoui, S., Sakthikumar, S., Maquignon,


Ph., Three Phase Oil Relative Permeability Determination as a
Key Point in the evaluation of a Tertiary Gas Gravity Drainage
Project, SPE 30761, SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, Dallas, October 1995.
3. Gunawan, S., Caie, D., Handil Field: Three years of Lean Gas
Injection Into Waterflooded Reservoirs. SPE 57289, SPE Asia
Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
October 1999.
4. Kantzas A., Chatzis I. and Dullien F.A.L.: Enhanced Oil
Recovery by Inert Gas Injection, SPE 17379. SPE/DOE
Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 1988
5. Lepski, B., Bassiouni, Z., Wolcot, J., Second Contact Water
Displacement Oil Recovery Process, SPE/DOE 35360,
SPE/DOE 10th Improved Oil recovery, Tulsa, April 1996
6. Ren, W., Cunha, L.B., Bentsen, R., Numerical Simulation and
Screening of Oil Reservoirs for Gravity Assisted Tertiary GasInjection Processes, SPE 81006, SPE Latin American and
Carribean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Trinidad, April
2003
7. Clara, C., Durandeau, M., Quenault, G., Nguyen, T., Laboratory
Studies for Light Oil Air Injection Projects: Potential Application
in Handil Field. SPE 54337, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, 1999
8. Clara, C., Zelenko, V., Schirmer, P., Wolter, T. Appraisal of the
Horse Creek Air Injection Project Performance SPE49519, 8th
Abu Dabi Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dabi,
1998.