Comparative Performance

Analysis of Water and Gas

Flooding in a Saturated
Volumetric Oil Reservoir
Using Black Oil Simulator
Objective

 To simulate the available recovery options

before the exploitation of reservoir A-1
 To analyse and compare them
 To choose the best one
Contents

 Reservoir Description
 Scenario 1 – Water Flood
 Scenario 2a – HC Gas Flood (FOPR)
 Scenario 2b – HC Gas Flood (BHP;PROD)
 Scenario 3 – Miscible Gas Flood
 Comparative Analysis
 Concluding Remarks
This work – Case Study

 Reservoir A-1
 Saturated
 Volumetric
 Layered
 Downward fining
 Pi = Pb = 3800 psig
 PV = 233.77 MMRB
 Soi = 85%
 Rsi = 770 SCF/STB
Reservoir Description
 Layer 1
 Permeability = 500 md (Phillppe, 1993)
 Porosity = 30%
 Thickness = 25 ft

 Layer 2
 Permeability = 50 md
 Porosity = 20%
 Thickness = 75 ft

 Layer 3
 Permeability = 20 md
 Porosity = 20%
 Thickness = 75 ft  Grid System 10X10X4
 Grid: Cartesian
 Layer 4  Geometry: Block Centred
 Permeability = 10 md
 Dimension: DX = DY = 500 ft
 Porosity = 10%
 Thickness = 150 ft
Fluid Description
 Oil API gravity = 35
 Gas sp. gravity = 0.75
(Phillppe, 1993)
 Water sp. gravity = 1.0
Relative Permeability
(Corey, 1954)
 Swi = 15% (Stone, 1973)
 Water wet formation
Well Location & Completion
 Injection well : INJ (10,10)
 Production well : PROD (1,1) (Phillppe, 1993)
 Diameter : 0.33 ft
Scenario 1 – Water Flooding
 Water Injection rate = 20,000 stb/d
 Oil production rate max = 18,700 stb/d
Scenario 2a – HC Gas Flood
 Injection rate = 12.5 mmscf/d
 Production rate (constt) = 1870 stb/d
Scenario 2b – HC Gas Flood
 Injection rate = 12.5 mmscf/d
 Production rate max = 12,000 stb/d
 Min BHP = 2000 psi
Scenario 3 – Miscible Gas Flood
 Injection rate = 12.5 mmscf/d
 Production rate max = 10,000 stb/d
 Min BHP = 2000 psia
Comparative Analysis – Resv. Pressure
Comparative Analysis – Oil Prod. Rate
Comparative Analysis – Gas-oil Ratio
Comparative Analysis – Gas Prod. Rate
Comparative Analysis - Oil Recovered

Cumulative Oil Recovered

Water Flood HC Gas Flood (b) Misc Gas Flood

49.37

50

45

40

35

30
MMSTB

25 16.88 15.50
20

15

10

0
Recovery Factors

Ratio of Oil Displaced to Initial OIP

Water Flood HC gas Flood (b) Misc Gas Flood

35.92%

12.28%
11.28%
What will be the behaviour if we
extend simulation to 30 years ?
86.73
90

80

70
Million Stock tank Barrel

60
49.37
50
Oil Recovered
40

30
20.39
16.88 18.17
20
15.50

10

0
After 10 years After 30 years
Concluding Remarks

 We have analysed a volumetric and saturated reservoir constituting

different permeability layers with highest permeability layer at the top
and vertical permeability is 1/10 times the horizontal permeability for
all layers.

 Gas injection in this reservoir and other reservoirs with similar

conditions (highest permeability in top layer and lowest in bottom
one, and also saturated conditions) doesn’t give satisfactory results
due to gravity override, as it is clear from the results of this study.

 However water flooding in such reservoirs causes higher recoveries

and sweeps bottom layers as well due to its higher density.
Concluding Remarks

 On the basis of results obtained after 10 years, up-to three times

higher recovery, excellent pressure maintenance and lower gas-oil-
ratio makes water flooding to be the recommended recovery
technique.

 Extending the project life to 30 years reveals more concrete results

regarding benefits of waterflooding.