Summary. Injecting water into a low-pressure gas reservoir nearing abandonment will displace gas and increase ultimate recovery. This paper examines the theory and reports the results of a case history Water was injected into a southern Louisiana gas reservoir for more than 10 years, successtully increasing recovery by 25 Bet {710% 106 m3} This paper also discusses the im- portance of considering all possi- ble producing mechanisms early ina reservoirs life to predict future performance properly and shows that straightline plz performance does not necessarily indicate that a gas reservoir has a depletion drive, as is frequently assumed in practice. “Waterflooding a volumetric gas reservoir that does not experience water influx can increase recovery from 5 to 16% of OGIP, depending on initial and abandonment 902 ———_______— Waterflooding Increases Gas Recovery Lloyd D. Cason Jr., SPE, Exxon Co. U.S.A Introduction [Natural gas i a major source of energy pro- duction and consumption in the U.S. As reserves decline investigators are studying the potential of increased supplies from several unconventional sources! and from ‘waterdrive reservoirs with high production rates in the gas zones? and the aquifers. Production at high rates from a waterdrive reservoir isan atempe to reduce reservoir pressure to low value, thereby minim ing the actual gas volume occupying residual pore space, A reservoir with litle water in Fux that depletes to low pressure has the op- posite problem because all the pore space 1s sill filled with gas ‘This paper shows that increased recovery can be obtained by waterooding a low= pressure gas reservoir and discusses ana tal Feld case, The Discorbis 1 reservoir (Reservoir D-1) in the Duck Lake field of southern Louisiana (St. Martin Parish) ini= tilly produced by limited aquifer inlux. ‘Water injection was initiated ater reservoir pressure had fallen below 1,000 psi [6.9 MPa and continued for 11 years. An in- cremental recovery of 25 Bef [710% 108 m3] was ateibued to water injection, This project was primarily a low-cost expansion ‘ofthe fel’s existing saltwater disposal sy tem, providing a unique opportunity for an ‘economic project at the Ba prices of the 1910's, which were about 15% of current Prices Analysis of Reservoir D-1 also provides the opportunity to show that straight plc performance does not necessarily mean that 2 gas reservoir hs a depletion drive. The- ‘ory showing that depletion-drive eas reser- voirs will exhibit straight-line pc plot has been developed. The corollary that @ Straight-ie plz plot proves the existence of a depletion drive-—has not heen proven, hough itis frequently assumed in practice Theory 1 a gas reservoir produces strictly by pres- sure depletion, hydrocarbon pore space at abandonment pressure should be equal to that at intial pressure. significant amount of gas, however, can remain in the reser- voir. Injecting water at abandonment pres sure displaces 2 fraction of the PV to Cony 888 Sota of Peseum Engrs production wells, leaving a residual gas sat ration that conisins minimal standard volume because of the low trapping pres sure. Thus, the good features of pressure depletion and water displacement are com- bined in a controlled production mechanism Craft and Hawkins? showed that recov- ery for a waterdrive reservoir can be ex: pressed as 100((1 SF —~Syped O-SF ao and that recovery fora depletion rive reser- voir can be expressed 2s p= 100(F g~ Feo: ® FFor imbibition fluid displacements, Naar and Henderson® concluded that residual nonvertng-phase saturation shouldbe about ‘one-half the initial nonsseting-phase satu- ration, so that or AS = =Sy) @ ‘Substituting Eq, 3 ito Eg. 1 and subtract ing Eq. 2 yields AEp=50B (By ® Eq, 4 presents a simple means to calculate ‘theoretical incremental recovery, a a per- ‘centage of original ga in place (OGIP), that results from waterflooding a gas reservo {hat is pressure depleting. This recovery fac- tors epresenatve of & homogeneous teser- voir where permeability is uniform areally and venically, and water coning is ne- elected ‘To investigate the magnitude of expected theoretical incremental recovery, values are calculated with Eq. 4 over a range of initial and abandonment pressures for a 0,65-gravi- ty gas. Initial pressure is varied from 3,000 10 6,000 psi [20.7 to 41.4 MPa}, and aban ddonient pressure is varied from $00 10 1,000 psi [3.4 to 6.9 MPa}. The results shown in Fig. 1 indicate that incremental recovery can vary betwoen 5 and 16% of the OGIP, Fig. 1 also shows that higher reservoir pressures a the stat of injection increase the potential incremental recovery This i possible because a larger volume of ‘October 1960 + pr226 is left to displace at these higher pres- sures. Depending on relative costs, water- flooding at a higher pressure when well ‘cepability i larger may be more economi- cal than compressing a low abandonment pressure ‘Values of incremental recovery caleulat- ed by Eq, 4 could be used to sereen prospec tive reservoirs. A more detailed analysis should be made for specifi reservoirs, how ‘ever, because several variables affect rooov- ery. The simplified assumption of Eq, 3 may ‘ot apply to all reservoirs. Geffen et al.” reported that residual gas saturations can range from 1S to 50%. Each 10% ditt fence in the ratio S,,/S,, esuls in & 20% change in incremental recovery. Laboratory ‘measurements to determine imbibition residual saturations should be used where possible. Also a less-than-ideal pattern oF vertical sweep efliciency ina nonhomogene- ‘ous reservoir would cause average residual saturation to be larger than that measured inthe laboratory ‘An actual reservoir producing mechanism will also affect incremental recovery. Pres- sure depletion may be assumed from early time production history when water influx is actually occurring. Any influx reduces the remaining hydrocarbon PV and incremen- tal recovery attributable to water injection “,, .the good features of pressure depletion and water displacement are combined in a controlled production mechanism to maximize recovery.” Duck Lake Reservoir D-1 Development Discovery and Geology. The Duck Lake field is 75 miles (121 km] west of New (Orleans inthe Atchafalaya River basin. The field was discovered in 1949 and contains about 30 productive horizons ranging in pt for 8,000 1 13,000 ft [2400 to 4000 ‘] and in ag from Mile Miocene to Low- er Miocene. Formations within the field are Tow-relief, domical anticline structures trending in a norteast/southwest direction. Reservoir D-L isthe largest gas reservoir. Fig. 2 illustrates th anticlnal nature ofthe formation. The reservoir is hounded by a fault on the northwest and a gas/water con- tact at 12,574 ft [3833 ml] subsea on the re maining Sides. Fig, 3 shows that water initially did noe underlie the reservoir and that influx was from a edge drive ‘Rock and Fluid Properties. Table 1 shows basic rock and fluid properties for Reser voir D-1. Rock properties ae based on logs and sidewall core, Porosity averages 25% and initial water saturation averages 18% lover the 6,100-acre [24.7% 108-m?] area, while permeability averages 1,750 tnd, Net sand thickness ranges from 40 1090 f (12 027 mj and net pay thickness averages $0 (15 ml. The reservoir was not abnormal |y pressured but was deep enough tobe con- solidated and to have normal formation compressibility over is producing life Hydrocarbon properties were determined from laboratory analysis of fluid samples taken early in the life of the reservoir. At initial conditions of $,800 psi [40 MPa] and 240°F [116°C], the low-yield gas- Condensate fluid was at its dewpoint. The Yield, however, slow enough that phase be- havior changes should not affect pressure performance data Production History. Reservoir D-1 was produced under unit operations with éril- ‘ng nits that were approved before the pro- duction initiation in 1954. voluntary reservoir-wide unit was later approved in 1968. Fig. 4 shows production history of Reservoir D-1. Gas rate appears to have been controlled mainly by market cond tions. Sisteen wells were intially complet ced in Reservoir D-, and production peaked at 120 MMef/D [3.4%10® m3/d) in 1957, ‘The rate steadily declined to @ low of 62 MMef/D [1.8108 m3/d] in 1961, but in- creased 10 130 MMefID [3.7108 m3/d] in 1966 because of increased market demand ad added completions. From 1967 to deple- tion in 1981, the gas rate decreased continy- ally asthe reservoir pressure decline reduced capability and wells were lost to water pro- duction. The first wells watered out in 1960 Fig. 1—Theoretical incremental recovery. IPT + October 1989 ———-—— 0sFig. 3—Cross section, Fig, 4—Pressure and production history, ‘TABLE 1—RESERVOIR ROCK ‘AND FLUID DATA afer 200 Bet [5.7% 10? m3] was produced. ‘This may have been the fis indication that water influx was occurring. Performance Productive area, aces 6.100 Porosity, 86 25 Pormeabity, me 1,750 Init water saturation, % 18 Init pressure, pst 5.300 “Temperature, *F 40 Original gas FVF, RBMsct 0.67 ‘Wet gas gravity (air= 10) 0.85 Inia yield, DbNMect 14 ‘Average timation cip, degrees 2.5 Aquterreserirraaivs rato 8 analysis could have indicated water influx ‘much earlier. Influx rose to a higher struc= {ure evel oa the west than on the east, but its effect on production was minimized by structure and sand distribution. Figs. 2nd 3 show how water owed parallel 10 the ‘orthorn fault and across the central saddle. ‘The spill point was reached before 1966. ‘This allowed influx from the westside 10 reach the eas side ofthe reservoir without ‘sweeping across the structural erst, prema- turely watering out wells Reservoir pressure declined continually ‘over the producing life and reached 910 psi [6.3 MPa} at the end of 1970, when water injection was initiated. A cumulative of 130, million bbl [20.7108 m3] was injeted by ‘Aug. 1981, an average of 3,000 B’D [5250 1m), Pressure decine leveled off during water injection withthe low withdrawal rates. Reservoir pressure reached a mini ‘mum of 585 psi [4 MPa] atthe end of 1979. Performance Analysis. The typical per formance analysis ofa pss reservoir inclodes ‘construction of plot of pz vs. cumulative 2s production. Ite poins plot as straight Tine, the reservoir is sometimes assumed (0 be either volumetric oF producing by sim- ple pressure depletion without water influx. ‘A-coneave, upward pz curve indicates an active waterdrive, The interpretation that a straight-line plz plot represents a volume rie reservoir isnot stated but is frequently assumed t0 bea corollary to proven theory. ig. § shows the pz plot for Reservoir D-l. A straight line can be fit through the eatly points to about 45% of actual gas in place (GIP) and extrapolated 10 show an OGIP of 850 Bef [24.1109 m?). Later data, however, plot concave downward “Material balance, modified to account for prossure gradiem across the invaded region ‘with unsteady-sate aquifer influx, as devel- ‘oped by Lutes er al.,? was coupled with the regresion approach developed by Rossen® to™match the pressure and production data. "The match calculates an OGIP of 681 Bet [19.3109 m3] and an aquiereservoir- radius ratio of 6:1. The solid line in Fi, ‘shows the mateh between the model and the actual data pots. ‘The possibilty of a concave-downward plc plot fr a waterdrve was reported previ ‘ously, Bruns er al.? simulated production fof a theoretical reservoie for 38 combina tions of aquifer size and influx properties. Several cases showed a concave-downward performance with some remeining straight {throughout the production life. Once the aquifer size and influx constants become large enough, the typically concave-upward ‘curve is exhibited. Dumoré® reports on a fees reservoir in Germany for’ which a cconcave-downward plz plot is predicted. ‘Run 20 of Bruns eal. and the prediction ‘of Dumoré are combined with performance fof Reservoir D-I in Fig. 6. Early-time Straight-line p/ ean persist uni 40 10 50% Ne Sa ea uN Fig. 6—plz performance comparison. October 1989 + PT