05.MaheshAvasare Core Simulation

ANNUAL MEETING MASTER OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
Coreflooding Simulations
Chemical Coreflooding Simulations with Digital Rock Physics
Mahesh Avasare
Masters in Petroleum Engineering, IST Lisbon
Bachelors in Chemical Engineering, IIT Bombay
3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 1

Acknowledgement
I am grateful to my guide, Pedro Romero Fernandez,

and rest of Exploration and Production team at R&D
center of CEPSA for continuous guidance & support.
I am thankful to Prof. Maria João Pereira and Prof.

Leonardo Azevedo for offering such dynamic internship
opportunity. Also thankful to Prof. Amílcar Soares for
constant motivation during the internship.

Presentation Overview
 Introduction
– Study Motivation
– Basics of Chemical EOR
– Basics of Coreflooding
 Phase 1: ASP Flooding in 1D Model

– ECLIPSE Model
– History Match
– Sensitivity Analysis

Presentation Overview
 Phase 2: Petro-Physical 3D Model (PETREL)

– CT Scan Results (Digital Rock Physics)
– Density-Porosity-Permeability Models
 Phase 3: Simulation 3D Model

– History Match
– Sensitivity Analysis
 Further Work

Introduction: Study Motivation
 Core analysis results are considered as most reliable data in

the Exploration & Production.
 Properties derived from core analysis are extrapolated to

reservoir scale; assuming cores are homogenous.
 In reality; cores are heterogeneous at micro level. This leads

to approximation of properties; leading to higher uncertainty.
 The study is aimed at reducing uncertainty from core analysis

Introduction: Chemical EOR
Recovery Mechanisms
(Schmidt, 1990)

Introduction: Chemical EOR
Surfactant and Polymer Effects:
Chemical EOR Fundamentals, Delshad 2012

Introduction: Coreflooding
 Injection of fluid(s) into the core, mainly to analyze

the response of the core.
Image Courtesy: CEPSA-CIMNE
 Chemical EOR techniques are always simulated on

the core before advancing to piolet well test.

 Standard Coreflooding Setup:
Courtesy: CEPSA R&D Center

Picture Courtesy: CEPSA R&D Center

Phase 1: 1D Model
Real core dimensions: Cartesian Model: 100 X 1 X 1

Diameter: 38.5 mm Dx = 0.385mm
Length: 242 mm Dy = Dz = 242mm
 Simulations are performed in ECLIPSE 2014.1

Phase 1: History Match


Phase 1: Sensitivity Analysis
Interfacial Tension (IFT) Variation:

Viscosity Variation (By varying polymer concentration):

Phase 1: Summary
Conclusion:
 Homogenous 1D model was able to generate good history
match with lab data
 Sensitivity analysis also showed expected trends.
Disclaimer:
 Relative permeability curves
were modified unrealistically
to attain history match.

Phase 2: CT Scan of Core
 Imported CT scan results into

Petrel as “seismic survey”
 Model dimensions:
35.4x35.4x50.6 mm
 Orthogonal grid
 Resolution: 500x500x625 μm
 Total Grid Cells: 408k
 Active Grid Cells: 316k

Phase 2: Attenuation to Density
Correlation between average attenuation of complete core vs

bulk density of the same core was used.

Phase 2: Density to Porosity
 Core is assumed to be made of “Grain” & “Fluids”:

- “Grain” component is assumed to be of mainly quartz (98% wt/wt)
and other impurities. [Average 𝜌𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 = 2.60 gm/cc ]
- “Fluids” component is assumed to be of oil + water with known
composition from material balance. [Average 𝜌𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 = 0.84 gm/cc ]
 “Grains” are supposed to be distributed uniformly in core

and “liquid” is uniformly distributed in pore spaces.
 Local porosity was determined with following
correlation:
ρBulk − ρFluid
Porosity = 1 −
ρGrain − ρFluid
Phase 2: Density to Porosity

Phase 2: Porosity to Permeability
 ‘Mercury Injection Method’

is used to find pore throat
distribution.
 With past data of several
cores, the core was
categorized into category
Rock Type 2: ‘RT2’.
(There are 4 rock types.)
 Permeability – porosity
correlation for RT2 was
extrapolated to generate
permeability model.

Phase 2: Summary
Conclusion:
 Porosity Model generated through above method largely follows
experimental trend.
 Permeability model can not be verified with experimental

conditions due to complex nature.
 Permeability distribution is generated with single rock-type

curve, generating homogeneity across the core.

Phase 3: 3D Simulation Model
Simulation Issues Resolved:

 Well Geometry Integration
 Convergence Error
 Simulation Time Optimization

Simulation Targets:
 Regeneration of un-swept oil zones
 Restraining realistic relative permeability curve
 Achieving theoretical history match

Simulation Targets:
 Regeneration of un-swept oil zones
 Restraining realistic relative permeability curve
 Achieving theoretical history match



Sensitivity Analysis Targets:

- To create heterogeneity in model within realistic boundaries
- To dominate heterogeneity with extremity effect
Sensitivity Models*:
- Permeability Distribution Alterations
- Relative Permeability Curve Alterations
(*only basic 3 models are mentioned as representative)

Phase 3: Sensitivity – Permeability Dist.
 According to “Genetic Hydraulic Unit”, permeability

distribution follows log-normal distribution.
 To maintain the natural distribution trend, and increase the
standard deviation, the permeability distribution was co-kriged
with another reference lognormal distribution
 Reference normal distribution can be described as:
 Mean = 2700  Std. Deviation = 3000

 Minimum = 0.025  Maximum = 25000

The resulting distribution:

Original Resulting
Distribution Model
(mD) (mD)
Min: 3 31
Max: 50521 24994
Mean: 3597 2741
Standard
2445 2711
Deviation:
(Original distribution: Dark blue | Model 2: Light blue)



Phase 3: Sensitivity – Rel. Perm. Curve
 The original relative permeability curve used till now, was

based on data from past experience from field
 End points of the relative Original Modified

Curve Curve
permeability curve were (kr Original) (Kr1 curve)
achieved from lab Swi 0.21 0.21
experiments, giving reliable Sro 0.23 0.23
data points. “Corey n water 2 1
n oil 1.3 5
Exponent” (n) of these
krw,ro 0.24 0.24
curves altered as follows: Kro,wi 1 1



Phase 3: Summary
Conclusion:
 Alterations in Permeability Distribution modifies initial oil
production trend, but final saturation levels remains same.
 Alterations in Relative Permeability Curve significantly altered oil

production curve, but deviates slightly from reality.
 Both sensitivity analysis were not able to generate oil un-swept

zones.

Further Work
 High heterogeneity was

generated with applying
different permeability vs
porosity curves for
different rock types.
*Distribution was generated on the

basis of percentage of each rock
type in the reservoir.
Modified Permeability Distribution

Further Work
 Each rock type exhibits different relative permeability curve.

Further Work
 Combination of above
different permeability
distribution and
corresponding
relative permeability
models generated un-
swept oil zones.
 Further studies will be targeted at running experimental

Chemical EOR flooding and corresponding simulations.

Bibliography
• Abadli F.; Simulation Study of Enhanced Oil Recovery by ASP Flooding for Norne
C-Field; NTNU, 2012
• Bozorgzadeh M., Romero Fernandez Pedro; Strategy for Calibrating a Field-Scale
Numerical Simulation Study; SPE Conference; Abu Dhabi, 2015
• Mojdeh D.; Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery Fundamentals; Madrid, 2012
• Sadegh K.; Numerical approach for enhanced oil recovery with surfactant flooding;
Petroleum, 2015.
• Pope G., Chemical Flooding Overview, UT Austin, 2007
• Schmidt R. L.; Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery - Current Status and Future
Needs; Chemical Engineering Progress, 1990

Thank You !

05.MaheshAvasare Core Simulation

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

05.MaheshAvasare Core Simulation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ANNUAL MEETING MASTER OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 1

I am grateful to my guide, Pedro Romero Fernandez,

I am thankful to Prof. Maria João Pereira and Prof.

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 2

 Phase 1: ASP Flooding in 1D Model

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 3

 Phase 2: Petro-Physical 3D Model (PETREL)

 Phase 3: Simulation 3D Model

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 4

 Core analysis results are considered as most reliable data in

 Properties derived from core analysis are extrapolated to

 In reality; cores are heterogeneous at micro level. This leads

 The study is aimed at reducing uncertainty from core analysis

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 5

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 6

Surfactant and Polymer Effects:

Chemical EOR Fundamentals, Delshad 2012

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 7

 Injection of fluid(s) into the core, mainly to analyze

Image Courtesy: CEPSA-CIMNE

 Chemical EOR techniques are always simulated on

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 8

 Standard Coreflooding Setup:

Courtesy: CEPSA R&D Center

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 9

Picture Courtesy: CEPSA R&D Center

Real core dimensions: Cartesian Model: 100 X 1 X 1

 Simulations are performed in ECLIPSE 2014.1

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 11

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 12

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 13

Interfacial Tension (IFT) Variation:

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 14

Viscosity Variation (By varying polymer concentration):

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 15

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 16

 Imported CT scan results into

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 17

Correlation between average attenuation of complete core vs

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 18

 Core is assumed to be made of “Grain” & “Fluids”:

 “Grains” are supposed to be distributed uniformly in core

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 20

 ‘Mercury Injection Method’

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 21

 Permeability model can not be verified with experimental

 Permeability distribution is generated with single rock-type

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 22

Simulation Issues Resolved:

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 23

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 24

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 25

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 26

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 27

Sensitivity Analysis Targets:

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 28

 According to “Genetic Hydraulic Unit”, permeability

 Mean = 2700  Std. Deviation = 3000

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 29

The resulting distribution:

(Original distribution: Dark blue | Model 2: Light blue)

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 30

3/May/2016 Instituto Superior Técnico 31