Enhanced Oil Recovery Manu

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY:
SURFACTANT FLOODING AS A POSSIBILITY FOR

THE NORNE E-SEGMENT
RESERVOIR ENGINEERING SPECIALIZATION PROJECT
BY
CHINENYE CLARA EMEGWALU

(AUTUMN 2009)
SUPERVISOR: PROFESSOR JON KLEPPE
DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING AND APPLIED GEOPHYSICS
EOR: Surfactant flooding Possibility for Norne E- Segment

DISCLAIMER
All views expressed in this project are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of Statoil
and the Norne license partners.
i
EOR: Surfactant Flooding Possibility for Norne E-Segment
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My profound gratitude goes to my supervisor, Professor Jon Kleppe for his immeasurable
advice and support during the course of this project. I also wish to express my sincere
appreciation to Dr. Lars Høier for taking time out of his busy schedule to guide me through this
project. Also to Dr. Vegard Kippe, I say a big thank you for explaining the requirements of the
surfactant model in ECLIPSE simulator. My appreciation also goes to Per Einar Kalnas with
whom I worked with during this project.
I also wish to acknowledge the center for Integrated Operations at NTNU and Statoil for the
release of the Norne data for the purpose of research.
ii
ABSTRACT
Primary recovery of oil utilizes the natural energy in the reservoir but production is often
limited to about 15% of original oil in place. Secondary recovery mechanism, like water
flooding, increases oil recovery to only about 30% of original oil in place.
After water flooding, as much as 60% of original oil is still left trapped in pores in the reservoir
due to high capillary pressure from water.
One way of recovering the residual oil is by reducing the interfacial tension between oil and
water thereby making it easy for oil to coalesce and flow out of the reservoir to production
wells. This is achieved by the use of surfactants.
In this project, the possibility of using surfactants to increase the recovery factor of the Norne
field E-Segment was examined. However the full field surfactant flooding simulation could not
be performed because of time constraint.
However, a synthetic reservoir model, with fluid and rock properties from Norne field E-
Segment was used to test the effect of surfactant flooding on recovery factor.
The results showed very good responses with increase in recovery factor for cases where
surfactant flooding were applied.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
Disclaimer i
Acknowledgement ii
Abstract iii
Table of Content iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables viii
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview of Enhanced Oil Recovery Processes 3
1.2 Classification of EOR Processes 4
1.21 Chemical Processes 4
1.22 Miscible Processes 4
1.23 Mobility Controlled Processes 4
1.24 Thermal Processes 4
1.25 Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery 5
2.0 Surfactant 6
2.1 Surfactant Flooding 6
2.2 Mechanism 7
2.21 Capillary Number 7
2.22 Volumetric Sweep Efficiency 9
2.23 Interaction between Surfactant and rock (Retention) 9
2.3 Advances in Studies on Surfactant Flooding in the North Sea 10
3.0 General Field Information on Norne 12
3.1 Reservoir Communication and Stratigraphic Barriers 14
3.2 Norne E-Segment 15
3.21 Production Profile 16
3.22 Cumulative Oil and Gas Production 17
3.23 Water Cut and Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) 17
3.24 Reservoir Pressure and Formation Volume Factor 21
3.3 Reservoir Modeling of E-Segment Using Eclipse Simulator 21
3.4 Justification of Surfactant Flooding for the Norne Segment 23
3.41 Residual Oil Saturation in Water-Swept Zones 24
4.0 Simulating Surfactant Flooding for Synthetic Model 25
4.1 Description of Synthetic Model 25
4.2 Norne Field Rock and Fluid Properties 26
4.21 Relative Permeability 26
4.3 Simulated Cases 28
4.4 Mechanism of Surfactant Simulation in Eclipse 28
4.41 Surfactant Conservation Equation 28
4.42 Relative Permeability Model 29
iv
4.43 Capillary Pressure 29
4.44 Treatment of Adsorption 29
4.5 Keywords to Activate the Surfactant Model in Eclipse 30
4.51 SURFACT 30
4.52 SURFST 30
4.53 SURVISC 30
4.54 SURFCAPD 30
5.0 Results and Discussion 32
5.1 Effect of Continuous Surfactant Flooding on Recovery 32
5.12 Effect of Continuous Surfactant Flooding on Production Rate 32
5.13 Effect of Continuous Surfactant Flooding on Cumulative Production 33
5.14 Effect of Continuous Surfactant Flooding on Water Production Rate 35
5.15 Effect of Continuous Surfactant Injection on Reservoir Pressure 35
5.2 Effect of High Interfacial Tension on Recovery Factor 35
5.3 Effect of zero Capillary Pressure on Recovery Factor 37
5.4 Comparison between continuous Surfactant Flood injection and Slug Injection 38
5.5 Comparing Performance between Vertical and Horizontal well 38
6.0 Conclusion 40
REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX ECLIPSE DATA FILES
A. Base Case Data File 42

B. Continuous Surfactant Flooding 45
C. Zero Capillary Pressure 48
D. High Interfacial Tension 51
E. Surfactant Slug Injection 54
F. Horizontal Well
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Classification of EOR Methods 5

Figure 1.2: SAGD Thermal Process 5
Figure 2.1: Surfactant molecule 6

Figure 2.2: Phase Position in a Typical Chemical Flood 7
Figure 2.3: Capillary Desaturation Curve for a Non-Wetting Phase 8
Figure 2.4: Adsorption Regions 10
Figure 3.1: Location of Norne Field 12

Figure 3.2: Norne Main Structure 13
Figure 3.3: Development of Norne Field 13
Figure 3.4: Floating Production and offloading Vessel 14
Figure 3.5: Water Production Rate, E –Segment 16
Figure 3.6: Oil Production Rate E-Segment 16
Figure 3.7: Gas Production Rate, E-Segment 17
Figure 3.8: Cumulative Oil Produced, E-Segment 18
Figure 3.9: Cumulative Gas Produced, E-Segment 18
Figure 3.10: Water Cut, E-Segment 19
Figure 3.11 Gas Oil Ratio, E-Segment 19
Figure 3.12: Reservoir Pressure Profile, E Segment 20
Figure 3.13: Bo vs. Pressure for E-Segment 20
Figure 3.14: Norne E-Segment and Wells 22
Figure 3.15: Norne E-Segment and Wells 22
Figure 3.16: Residual Oil Saturation of Norne E-Segment after waterflooding 23
Figure 3.17: Residual Oil Saturation in Block I=15, J=74, K=7 23
Figure 3.18: Residual Oil Saturation in Block I=16, J=75, K=6 24
Figure 4.1: Synthetic model for Surfactant Flooding Simulation 26

Figure 4.2: Relative Permeability Curves 29
Figure 4.3: Runspec Section showing SURFACT Keyword 31
Figure 4.4: Props Section showing SURFST and SURFCAPD Keyword 31
Figure 4.5: Props Section Showing SURVISC Keyword 31
Figure 5.1: Effect of Continuous Surfactant Flooding on Oil Recovery 32

Figure 5.2: Effect of Continuous Surfactant Flooding on Production Rate 32
Figure 5.3: Effect of Continuous Surfactant Flooding on Cumulative Oil Production 33
Figure 5.4: Effect of Continuous Surfactant Flooding on Water Production Rate 34
Figure 5.5: Effect of Continuous Surfactant Flooding on Reservoir Pressure 34
Figure 5.6: Effect of High Interfacial Tension on Recovery Factor 36
vi
Figure 5.7: Effect of High Interfacial Tension on Production Rate 36
Figure 5.8: Effect of High Interfacial Tension on Cumulative Production 36
Figure 5.9: Effect of Zero Capillary Pressure on Recovery Factor 37
Figure 5.10: Continuous Surfactant and Injection Slug Comparison 37
Figure 5.11: Horizontal Well for Continuous Surfactant Injection 38
Figure 5.12: Vertical and Horizontal well Surfactant Flooding Comparison 39
Figure 5.13: Pressure Comparison for Vert. & Hor. Well Surfactant Flooding 39
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Types of Interfaces 6
Table 2: Status of Wells in the E-Segment 15
Table 3: Formation and Fluids in the E-Segment 15
Table 4: Parameters included in the Eclipse Model 21
Table 5: Residual Oil Saturation in Layer 5, I Direction 25

Table 6: Residual Oil Saturation in Layer 5, J Direction 25
Table 7: Residual Oil Saturation in Layer 6, I Direction 25
Table 8: Residual Oil Saturation in Layer 6, J Direction 25
Table 9: Relative Permeability Table 27

Table 10: Rock and Fluid Properties 27
viii
ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A lot of oil fields are being produced with some kind of pressure maintenance right from the
start of production. The type of pressure maintenance used depends to some extent on the
wettability of the reservoir rocks. For water wet reservoirs, waterflooding is usually used. Water
flooding can aid in oil recovery from 1% to between 20 – 40% (1). After waterflooding, the
remaining oil could either be residual oil from the area swept by water or by-passed oil which
could not be swept by the flooding. A surfactant model is an Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
mechanism aimed at reducing the residual oil at the water-swept zones of the reservoir.
From various case studies, it can be said categorically that a waterflood that covers 100% of a
given oil zone leaves a residual oil of 30%. This is the value at which the end-point relative
permeability to oil is zero. The oil cannot be produced at this saturation because of the high
interfacial tension between oil and water. The water pressure alone is insufficient to overcome
the high capillary pressure required to move oil out of very small pores.
Surfactant offers a way of recovering much of the residual oil saturation by reducing interfacial
tension between water and oil. A very low oil-water interfacial tension reduces the capillary
pressure and thus allows water to displace additional oil. The residual oil can even be reduced
to zero if the interfacial tension can be successfully reduced to a zero-value. In practice, the
residual oil to very high surfactant is unlikely to lead to 100% recovery of the swept zone.
In carrying out a successful surfactant flooding, it is pertinent to evaluate the rock

characteristics. Appropriate measures should be taken to prevent a very high adsorption of the
surfactants on the rock surface. If the adsorption is too high, then large quantities of
surfactants will be required to produce a small amount of oil. Considering the fact that
surfactants are expensive, this scenario should be prevented.
The Norne Field E-Segment was used as a case study in this project.
A total of eight wells were drilled in this segment with two (2) being water injectors, five (5) oil
producers and one (1) observation well. Pressure maintenance is by water injection. Presently,
only one of the production wells is still active. The others have been plugged, due to high water
cut.
A visualization of the Norne E-segment in Eclipse model shows high residual oil saturation after
water flooding and a plot of oil saturation in selected blocks confirms the presence of a high
level of residual oil.
1
This project aims at increasing oil recovery by reducing this residual oil saturation through
surfactant flooding.
Chapter 3 of this project gives a brief description of the E-segment with production and
saturation profiles, visualized eclipse model and recovery efficiency. However, due to time
constraint, a full field surfactant flooding could not be simulated in the course of this project.
This task will be accomplished in the master thesis.
However, a synthetic homogenous 3 dimensional model (10, 10, 3) was used to study the effect
of surfactant flooding on oil recovery. Some reservoir properties of the Norne field were used in
simulating this model. The results and findings are presented in chapter five (5).
2
1.1 OVERVIEW OF ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY (EOR) PROCESSES
Enhanced Oil Recovery entails the injection of a fluid or fluids of some type into a reservoir. The
injected fluids and injected processes act as supplements to the natural energy present in the
reservoir to displace oil to a producing well. Also, the injected fluids interact with the reservoir
rock/oil system to create conditions favorable for oil recovery. These interactions include
lowering the interfacial tension, swelling of oil, viscosity reduction, wettability modification, or
favorable phase behavior. The interactions are attributable to physical and chemical
mechanism and to the injection or production of thermal energy. (5)
EOR refers to the recovery of oil that is left behind after primary and secondary recovery
methods are either exhausted or no longer economical.
• Primary production is the first oil out, the ‘easy oil’. Once a well has been drilled and
completed in a hydrocarbon bearing zone, the natural pressures at that depth will cause
oil to flow through the rock towards the lower pressure wellbore, where it is lifted to
the surface. Recovery is usually between 10-15% of original oil in place.
• Secondary recovery methods are used when there is insufficient underground pressure
to move the remaining oil. The most common technique is waterflooding, which uses
injector wells to introduce large bodies of water into the reservoir for pressure
maintenance and sweeping of oil encountered by water as it moves through the
reservoir. The recovery is between 10-30% of original oil in place.
• Tertiary process which is obtained after secondary recovery uses miscible gases,
chemicals and/or thermal recovery to displace additional oil after the secondary
recovery process become uneconomical.
In classifying recovery processes care should be taken because many reservoir production
operations are not conducted in the specified order above. A typical example is production
operations of the heavy oils that occur throughout the world. If the crude oil is sufficiently
viscous, it may not flow at economic rates under natural energy drives, so primary production
would be neglected. Waterflooding is also not useful thus; the use of thermal energy might be
the only way to recover a significant amount of oil. In other words, a supposed tertiary process
becomes the first stage. This can also apply in cases where the secondary process is skipped.
Because of the situations described above, the term ‘EOR’ is used to replace ‘tertiary recovery’
in most cases. ‘Improved Oil Recovery’ is also another descriptive designation which not
includes EOR but also encompasses a broader range of activities like reservoir characterization,
improved reservoir management and infill drilling (5)
3
1.2 CLASSIFICATION OF EOR PROCESSES
There are five categories of enhanced oil recovery. These include chemical, miscible, microbial
EOR, mobility-control and thermal processes. (5)
1.21 CHEMICAL PROCESSES
Chemical processes target the reduction of IFT between the displacing liquid and oil. It comes
from the injection of specific liquid chemicals which through their phase behavior leads to
displacing of more oil. Surfactants and polymer have shown more potential for a higher EOR
than any other method. In this process, a solution which contains surfactants is pumped in
followed by polymer. The surfactant injection can only be justified when oil prices are relatively
high and if the residual oil saturation after water-flooding process is high. This is because
surfactants are expensive.
1.22 MISCIBLE PROCESSES
The main objective in a miscible process is to displace oil with a fluid that is miscible with the oil
in all proportions. This miscibility leads to a reduction in interfacial tension between oil and
water thus leading to better oil sweep. Two major variations are distinguished in this process.
The first-contact-miscible (FCM) process where the injected fluid is directly miscible with the
reservoir oil and the Multiple-Contact-Miscible process (MCM) where miscibility comes from
modification of the composition of the injected fluid as it goes through the reservoir.
1.23 MOBILITY-CONTROLLED PROCESSES
In this process, a favorable mobility ratio is sought for improvement of the swept volume. This
is achieved by increasing the viscosity of water with polymers and reducing the mobility of gas
with foam.
1.24 THERMAL PROCESSES.
Thermal process involves the reduction of viscosity of oil so that it can flow towards producing
wells. It may be sub-divided into steam flooding, hot-water floods and in-situ combustion. In
the simplest form of steam flood, a single well is injected with steam for a certain period and
then closed for a while to allow for the steam to act on the oil very well. The well is then
opened for production which continues until the effect of the injected steam wears off and the
process is continued again. The most effective thermal recovery process however is the steam
assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) which utilizes two horizontal wells; steam is into the upper
well and production is from the lower well through gravity, figure 1.2.
4
1.25 MICROBIAL ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY (MEOR)
Microbes ferment hydrocarbons and produce by-products that are useful in the recovery of oil.
MEOR uses the mechanism of channeling oil through preferred pathway in the reservoir by
plugging off small channels so that oil is forced to migrate through larger pore spaces. Nutrients
like sugar, phosphates or nitrates are injected to stimulate growth of microbes and aid their
performance. The microbes generate surfactants and carbon dioxide that help to displace oil (12)
Figure 1.1 shows a classification of EOR methods.
(2)
Figure 1.1: Classification of EOR methods
(13)
Figure 1.2: SAGD Thermal Recovery Process
5
2.0 SURFACTANT
Surfactant is an abbreviation for surface active agents. Surfactants are wetting agents that
lower the surface tension of a liquid, allowing for easier spreading. The interfacial tension
between two liquids is also reduced.
A surfactant is characterized by its tendency to absorb at surfaces and interfaces. ‘Interface’

denotes a boundary between two immiscible phases; ‘surface’ indicates that one phase is a gas,
usually air. Table 1 further illustrates the different interfaces.
Interface Type
Solid-Vapour Surface
Solid-Liquid
Solid-Solid
Liquid-Vapour Surface
Liquid-Liquid
(3)
Table 1: Types of Interfaces
A surfactant molecule is amphiphilic, that is, it has a polar water-soluble group attached to a
non-polar insoluble hydrocarbon chain. This dual nature of the surfactants makes them reside
at the interface between aqueous and organic phases thereby lowering the interfacial tension.
Figure 2.1 illustrates a surfactant molecule.
(8)
Figure 2.1: Surfactant molecule
2.1 SURFACTANT FLOODING
Among chemical flooding methods, surfactant flooding processes are particularly effective for
recovering a large fraction of conventional oil (25° API or higher) (4) left in the reservoir after
6
waterflood – which could be as much as 60% of the original oil in place. The basic principle
behind the use of surfactant flooding is to recover the capillary-trapped residual oil remaining
after waterflooding by injecting surfactant solution; the residual oil can be mobilized through a
strong reduction in the interfacial tension (IFT) between oil and water (8). If the interfacial
tension can be reduced between the oil and water, the resistance to flow is definitely reduced.
If surfactants are properly selected, a reduction in interfacial tension could be as much as 10-3
dynes/cm, a recovery of 10-20% of the original oil in place, when not producible by other
technologies, is technically and economically feasible by surfactant feasible by surfactant-
flooding. (6)
2.2 MECHANISM
Following the injection of surfactants into the water-flooded section of the reservoir, interfacial
tension between oil and water become reduced and this leads to the mobilization and
coalescence of trapped oil droplets. The resultant effect is an increase in oil saturation
subsequently leading to a mobile oil bank. Surfactant also prevents already mobilized oil from
being re-trapped behind the oil bank.
Figure 2.2 gives an in-sight into the various regions of immiscible flow during displacement of
residual oil saturation in a water-flooded region.
(7)
Fig 2.2: Phase position in a typical chemical flood
Region 1 is the water-flooded residual oil saturation, with only water flowing. In region 2, an oil
bank has been formed with both oil and water flowing. Surfactant slug causes low IFT with oil,
brine and micro-emulsion in region 3 while polymer solution for mobility control is represented
by region 4.
2.21 CAPILLARY NUMBER
Capillary Number is defined as the ratio of the viscous forces and local capillary forces. This can
be calculated from the formula in equation below;
7

= Effective flow rate

µ = Viscosity of displacing fluid
σ = Interfacial Tension
Figure 2.3 shows an illustration of the Capillary Desaturation Curve which relates the capillary
Number Nc to the residual oil saturation.
An increase in capillary number implies a decrease in residual oil saturation and thus an
increase in oil recovery. In order to achieve an increase in the capillary number, an increase in
the viscosity of the displacement fluid or an increase in the velocity of displacement may not be
effective on a field scale. However, a high Nc can be achieved by reducing the interfacial
tension between water and oil by the use of surfactants.
(7)
Figure 2.3: Capillary Desaturation Curve for a non wetting phase
In water-wet rocks, the capillary number becomes

Ø = Contact angle measured through the fluid with highest density
The critical capillary number, NCri is the point which corresponds to a break in the desaturation
curve. In order to improve the oil recovery relative to water flooding by using chemicals, the
capillary number must be significantly higher than the critical capillary number. The shape of
the desaturation curves and critical capillary number depends on the following factors
• Pore-size distribution
8
• Ratio of body to pore throat diameter
• Wettability
For an ordinary water flood under water-wet conditions, Nc is usually in the range of 10-7 to 10-
5
. The critical capillary number maybe in the range of 10-5 to 10-4, however the desaturation of
the non wetting phase may occur at a capillary number in the range of 10-2 to 10-1.
2.22 VOLUMETRIC SWEEP EFFICIENCY
In volumetric displacement, it is always favorable to have mobility ratios less than one (M < 1)
for better sweep efficiency. In surfactant flooding, for successful displacement of the oil bank
towards the producing well, the mobility ratio should be as low as possible. A low mobility slug
improves the volumetric sweep efficiency by ensuring that the injected fluids get into low-
permeable layers and into the interior parts of the reservoirs that are far from the injection and
production wells (8).
The importance of mobility ratio in layered reservoir is made more evident by simulation
studies of surfactant floods in such reservoirs. Performance of surfactant flooding is
independent on the size of slug (small or large) injected.
2.23 INTERACTION BETWEEN SURFACTANT AND ROCK (RETENTION)
Retention of surfactant has being regarded as one of the main factors for the unfavorable
economics of surfactant flooding. Retention, which at times could be as much as 90% of
injected surfactant, could be by precipitation, phase trapping and adsorption. Precipitation and
phase trapping could however be prevented by using salt tolerant surfaces (8). Unfortunately,
the solution to adsorption is far from being solved as adsorption will always occur at solid-liquid
interface.
Figure 2.4 shows the different Regions of adsorption.
Region 1: Relationship between adsorbed material and equilibrium concentration is linear and
surfactant adsorption is mainly by anion exchange.
Region 2: Indicates an increase in adsorption because the hydrophobic chain of surfactant

already adsorbed interacts with oncoming surfactants.
Region 3: Electrostatic repulsion between surfactant and equivalent charged solid impedes
further significant increase in adsorption.
Region 4: At the Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC), a plateau is obtained.
9
(8)
Figure 2.4: Stages of adsorption
In surfactant flooding, it is important to make the concentration of the surfactants higher than
CMC in order to obtain a reasonably low IFT. This is because decrease in interfacial tension
between oil and water phase stops once the concentration of the surfactant reaches the CMC
Ways of reducing surfactant retention includes preflush using different chemicals which causes
reduction in hardness, increase in negativity of rocks and reduction in the activeness of the rock
to adsorption (8)
2.30 ADVANCES IN STUDIES ON SURFACTANT FLOODING IN THE NORTH SEA
Owing to the decline of production from some large mature fields in the Norwegian continental
shelf, Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) has become of major importance to the Norwegian
authorities and oil companies alike. A lot of money has been invested by them (Norwegian
authorities) on studies related to improved oil recovery. The most recent is the program named
Reservoir Utilization through advanced Technological Help (RUTH) and it lasted for 4 years
(1992 – 1995). It is a follow up on SPOR program (1985-1991). RUTH was designed to include
new subjects strategically important for optimal petroleum recovery. The total cost of the
project was 106 million Noks; the Research Council of Norway provided 55 million Noks while
51 million Noks was provided by the participating oil companies. (9)
The research focused on six methods and was organized into six sub-programs;
• Gas flooding
• Combined Gas/Water Injection (WAG)
10
• Foam
• Polymer Gels
• Surfactants
• Microbial Methods
A total of 32 projects were performed under these sub-programs and the main results of the
projects were reviewed and presented in form of technical papers.
For surfactant flooding, the research came up with the following conclusions;
• That the cost of robust chemical system and low oil price imply that traditional chemical
flooding of offshore sandstone oil reservoirs is not recommended.
• Major water-flooded reservoir gives residual oil saturation of 10-20% and is thus not
feasible for chemical flooding.
The views above are subjective because in recent times, the price of oil has been on the
increase, with an all high oil price of more than 100USD/barrel in 2008. Also, the increased
demand for energy in advancing countries like India and China means that the future is still
very promising for high oil prices. Thus surfactant flooding cannot be completely ruled out.
11
3.0 GENERAL FIELD INFORMATION OF NORNE.
The Norne Field is situated in the blocks 6608/10 and 6508/1 in the southern part of the
Nordland ii area in the Norwegian Sea. Its location, relative to the nearby field is shown in figure
3.1.
The Norne Field consists of two separate oil compartment, the Main Structure (Norne C, D and
E Segment) and the Northeast segment (Norne G-Segment), Figure 3.2. The main structure was
discovered in December 1991 and includes 98% of oil in place. (10)
The discovery well, 6608/10-2, proved a total hydrocarbon bearing column of 135m in the rocks
of Lower and Middle Jurassic age. The column consisted of a 110m thick oil leg with an
overlying gas cap (10)
(9)
Fig 3.1: Location of the Norne Field
The Norne Main Structure is relatively flat with a gas filled Garn Formation. Acquired reservoir
pressure data from the development wells indicate that the Not Formation is sealing and there
is probably no reservoir communication across the Not Formation. 49 wells have been drilled so
far in this field (9).
12
(11)
Figure 3.2: Norne Main Structure
The field is being developed with a production and storage vessel connected to six subsea
templates (Fig 3.3). Flexible risers carry the wellstream up to the vessel (9). Figure (3.4) shows
the floating Production and Storage Vessel.
Development drilling started in August 1996. Oil production started on November 6, 1997.
(11)
Fig 3.3: The development of Norne Field
13
(9)
Fig 3.4: Floating Production and Storage Offloading
3.1 RESERVOIR COMMUNICATION & STRATIGRAPHIC BARRIERS
The Norne field reservoir contains both faults and Stratigraphic barriers/layers which act as
restriction to vertical and lateral flow
Stratigraphic barriers have been identified and their lateral extent and thickness variation
assessed using cores and logs. The intervals which are believed to be continuous within the
Norne Field, restricting the vertical fluid flow are:
• Garn 3/Garn 2 – carbonate cemented layer at top Garn 2

• Not Formation – claystone formation
• Ile3/Ile2 – carbonate cementations and increased clay content at base Ile 3
• Ile2/Ile 1 – carbonate cemented layers at base Ile 2
• Ile 1/Tofte 4 – carbonate cemented layers at top Tofte 4
• Tofte 2/Tofte 1 – significant grain size contrast
• Tilje 3/Tilje 2 – claystone formation (PL 128 NORNE Reservoir Management Plan Norne
Field 2001)
14
3.2 NORNE-E SEGMENT
The E-Segment is part of the Norne Main Structure which also consists of the C and D segments.
Table (2) shows the status of the wells in E-Segment.
Well TYPE CONTENTS STATUS

E-2H PRODUCTION OIL PLUGGED
E-2AH PRODUCTION OIL PLUGGED
E-3H PRODUCTION OIL PLUGGED
E-3AH PRODUCTION OIL PLUGGED
E-3BH PRODUCTION OIL OBSERVATION
E-3CH PRODUCTION OIL PRODUCING
F-1H INJECTION WATER INJECTING
F-3H INJECTION WATER INJECTING
(9)
Table (2): Status of wells in the E-Segment
Table (3) shows the formations penetrated by the wells in E-Segment
Zone Fluid Present

Garn Gas
Not Oil (Sealing – Prevents communication between Garn and Ile
Ile Oil
Tofte Oil
Tilje Oil/Water
Åre Water
(10)
Table 3: Formations and fluids in the E-Segment
15
3.21 PRODUCTION PROFILE FOR NORNE E-SEGMENT
Figures 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 show the water, oil and gas production profile of the Norne E-segment.
Figure 3.5: Water Production Rate (simulated and History) for the Norne E-Segments.
Figure 3.6: Oil Production Rate (simulated and History) for the Norne E-Segments.
16
Figure 3.7: Gas Production Rate (simulated and History) for the Norne E-Segments.
From figure 3.5, it can be seen that the water production rate from 2006 is on the increase
while oil and gas rate (Figure 3.6 and 3.7 respectively) at that same period are on the decrease.
The increase in water production could be responsible for plugging of most of the oil producing
wells.
Figure 3.6 shows that oil production peaks in 1999 and then 2002 at 9,000 Sm3/day. However,
by 2006, the rate is as little as below 1000Sm3/day because most wells have been plugged.
3.22 CUMMULATIVE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FOR NORNE E-SEGMENT
Figure 3.8 shows that the cumulative oil produced at 2006 is over 11.0 MSm3 while figure 3.9
shows that cumulative gas produced is 1.60 MSm3.
3.23 WATER CUT AND GAS OIL RATIO
Figure 3.10 and 3.11 show the water cut and gas oil ratios respectively. From figure 3.11 it can
be seen that the GOR increases to as much as 1600Sm3/Sm3 by 2004. Subsequent plugging of
some of the wells leads to a reduction of the GOR to over 200Sm3/Sm3 by 2006. Figure 3.10
also shows that the water cut is increasing with time and is about 1.8 by 2006.
17
Figure 3.8: Cumulative Oil Produced (simulated and History) for the Norne E-Segments.
Figure 3.9: Cumulative Gas Produced (simulated and History) for the Norne E-Segments.
18
Figure 3.10: Water Cut (simulated and History) for the Norne E-Segments.
Figure 3.11: GOR (simulated and History) for the Norne E-Segments.
19
Figure 3.12: Reservoir Pressure Profile for the Norne E-Segments.
Saturated region
Figure 3.13: Bo vs Pressure for the Norne E-Segments.
20
3.24 RESERVOIR PRESSURE AND FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR (Bo)
Figures 3.12 and 3.13 show the reservoir pressure profile and the formation Volume Factor (Bo)
vs pressure respectively. The pressure shows a steady decline from 1997 until 2001 where it
starts increasing again. The increase in pressure is as a result of water and gas injection in the
TILJE/TOFTE formation. Gas was injected initially into the gas cap (GARN formation) for
pressure maintenance. However, FMT and production data later showed that the NOT
formation which is between the GARN and ILE formation was sealing and thus prevented
communication between these layers. Thus gas injection into the GARN formation was stopped
and instead injected into the TILJE/TOFTE in a WAG cycle (Table 3).
The Bo vs Pressure graph (Fig 3.13) further illustrates this. It is evident that the reservoir is still
in the under-saturated region. This is attributed to the fact that although, the reservoir has a
gas cap, there is however a barrier between the oil and gas sections in the reservoir. Also, gas
and water injection into the TOFTE/TILJE formation helps to keep the reservoir pressure above
the bubble point pressure.
The bubble point pressure for the Norne E-Segment is 251 bars.
3.30 RESERVOIR MODELING OF THE E-SEGMENT USING THE ECLIPSE SIMULATOR
The Norne E- Segment was modeled in the ECLIPSE simulator with grid blocks of dimensions 46,
112, 22 in I, J and K directions. The simulation was for a period between November 6, 1997 and
October 10, 2006 (Nine years). The table below gives a summary of the reservoir properties
considered in the model.
Reservoir
Parameters Details
Reservoir Fluid Oil, Water, Gas, Dissolved Gas, Vapour Oil
Grid and Faults Grid with sloping faults were included
Barriers Transmissibility between blocks especially at the bottom of layers was
included.
Fluid Properties Fluid properties including relative permeability is used
DRSDT Set to zero, gas injected is assumed not to lead to oil swelling.
FLUX BOUNDARY The E-Segment was delineated from the other segment to become
‘Stand-alone’
Table 4: Parameters included in the Eclipse model
21
Figures 3.14 and 3.15 show the eclipse model and wells for the Norne E- Segment.
Figure 3.14: showing the Norne E-Segment and wells
Figure 3.15: showing the Norne E-Segment and wells
22
3.40 JUSTIFICATION OF SURFACTANT FLOODING FOR THE NORNE E-SEGMENT
The visualization of the Norne E-segment (layer 4) shows a lot of residual oil saturation at the
end of water flooding. Also saturation plots of some blocks also show very high residual oil
saturation. This is shown in figure 3.16.
Figure 3.16: Residual Oil Saturation of Norne E-Segment after waterflooding
Figure 3.17: Residual Oil Saturation in block I=15, J=74, K=7
23
Figure 3.18: Residual Oil Saturation in block I=16, J=75, K=6
Figures 3.17 and 3.18 show the block oil saturations for block I=15, J=74 and K=7 and that of
I=16, J=75 and K=6. The residual oil saturation ranges from 0.7 to 0.8. These residual oil
saturations are very high and thus surfactant flooding is required to reduce the interfacial
tension between water and oil in order for the oil to flow.
From these observations, the next step is to simulate surfactant flooding for the E-segment.
However, the time constraint of this project prevents this. The simulation of the surfactant
flooding will be continued in the master thesis.
To continue the surfactant flooding, a synthetic simple model was used to test the effect of
surfactant on recovery factor. This is discussed in the next chapter.
3.41 RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION IN WATER-SWEPT ZONES.
Layer K = 4 has a wide range of residual oil saturation from 0.4602 to 0.80796. Layers 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11 and 12 all have residual oil saturations that are high. However, from layers 13 down to
22, the residual oil saturation is between 0.1 and 0.2. Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 below give some of
the blocks and the residual oil saturations.
24
LAYER 5: ALONG THE I-DIRECTION
LAYER 5: ALONG J-DIRECTION
BLOCKS RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION BLOCKS RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION

6, 47, 5 0.80796 16, 75, 5 0.78328
6, 48, 5 0.80388 15, 75, 5 0.79299
6, 49, 5 0.79997 14, 75, 5 0.78602
6, 50, 5 0.79760 14, 74, 5 0.78458
6, 51, 5 0.76272 13, 75, 5 0.75034
6, 52, 5 0.79680 11, 71, 5 0.72661
6, 53, 5 0.79632 10, 71, 5 0.72826
6, 54, 5 0.79440 9, 71, 5 0.68203
6, 55, 5 0.78391 8, 71, 5 0.60440
Table 5: Residual Oil Saturation in K = 5 layer, I Direction Table 6: Residual Oil Saturation in K = 5 layer, J Direction
LAYER 6 ALONG J DIRECTION

LAYER 6: ALONG I DIRECTION
BLOCKS RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION BLOCKS RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION
6, 47, 6 0.80090 16, 75, 6 0.79509
6, 48, 6 0.77659 15, 75, 6 0.79088
6, 49, 6 0.79369 14, 75, 6 0.77397
6, 50, 6 0.76919 13, 75, 6 0.68550
6, 51, 6 0.69731 12, 75, 6 0.65863
6, 52, 6 0.77275 10, 68, 6 0.73623
6, 53, 6 0.76256 9, 68, 6 0.72682
6, 54, 6 0.74121 8, 65, 6 0.73541
6, 55, 6 0.71712 7, 65, 6 0.67776
Table 7: Residual Oil Saturation in K = 6 layer, I Direction Table 8: Residual Oil Saturation in K = 6 layer, J Direction
25
4.0 SIMULATING THE SURFACTANT FLOODING PROCESS USING ECLIPSE SIMULATOR
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SYNTHETIC MODEL
The synthetic model is of dimension 10, 10, 3 in I, J and K directions respectively. Two wells, one
producer and an injector were placed in grids 10, 10, 3 and 1, 1, 3 respectively. The model is
homogenous and flat, figure 4.1. The Norne reservoir and fluid properties were used in the
simulation.
Figure 4.1: Synthetic model for surfactant flooding simulation
4.2 NORNE RESERVOIR FLUID AND ROCK PROPERTIES USED IN THE SYNTHETIC MODEL.
In using the synthetic model for the simulation of surfactant flooding, Norne field Fluid and rock
properties were used to populate the model. The tables below were used to populate the
model.
4.2.1 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY TABLE
The relative permeability values used in the simulation is given in table 9 below while rock and
fluid properties are given in table 10. The porosity and permeability were picked randomly from
the Norne Field E-Segment data.
26
SWFN Krw SOF2 Kro Pc
0.0800 0.0000 0.920 0.9000 1.7670
0.1260 0.0000 0.8740 0.7760 0.8740
0.1720 0.0000 0.8280 0.6630 0.4270
0.2180 0.0010 0.7820 0.5600 0.2770
0.2640 0.0040 0.7360 0.4680 0.2000
0.3100 0.0090 0.6900 0.3850 0.1540
0.3560 0.0180 0.6440 0.3120 0.1230
0.4020 0.0314 0.5980 0.2480 0.0996
0.4480 0.0500 0.5520 0.1920 0.0810
0.4940 0.0746 0.5060 0.1450 0.0674
0.5400 0.1062 0.4600 0.1050 0.0554
0.5860 0.1457 0.4140 0.0730 0.0452
0.6320 0.1940 0.3680 0.0480 0.0363
0.6780 0.2519 0.3220 0.0280 0.0280
0.7240 0.3200 0.2760 0.0150 0.0211
0.7700 0.4000 0.2300 0.0060 0.0144
0.8160 0.4920 0.1840 0.0010 0.0081
0.8620 0.5972 0.1380 0.0000 0.0023
0.8800 0.6420 0.1200 0.0000 0.0000
0.9080 0.7160 0.0920 0.0000 0.0000
0.9540 0.8500 0.0460 0.0000 0.0000
1.00 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Table 9: Norne E-Segment Relative Permeability Table used for simulation
FLUID PROPERTIES
Oil Density 860 kg/m3
Water Density 1033 kg/m3
Gas Density 0.853 kg/m3
Water Formation Volume Factor (Bw) 1.038
Water Viscosity 0.318
Compressibility factor 4.67E-5
ROCK PROPERTIES
Permeability in I and J Directions 1172, 1143 and 1162 (md)
Permeability in Z Direction 1050, 1800 and 500 (md)
Porosity 0.3
Reservoir Pressure 277 Bar
Compressibility 4.67 E-5
Well control Constant Production and
Injection Rate
Table 10: Norne E-Segment Rock and Fluid Properties used for simulation
27
4.3 SIMULATION CASES
The following cases were simulated;
• Base case with only water flooding.

• Continuous surfactant flooding. After water flooding for 150 days, surfactant was
introduced at the injector well and pumped for 450 days.
• Effect of high interfacial tension is tested with continuous surfactant flooding
• Effect of zero capillary pressure is tested with continuous surfactant flooding.
• Effect of injecting surfactant slug and then water.
• Horizontal well is used instead of vertical well to test the time used to get zero residual
oil.
4.4 MECHANISM OF SURFACTANT SIMULATION IN ECLIPSE MODEL
4.41 SURFACTANT CONSERVATION EQUATION
This equation solves the modeling of injected surfactant distribution in the water phase. After
oil, water and gas have been computed, the surfactant concentration is then updated fully
implicitly. The surfactant is assumed to exist only in water phase.
4.42 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODEL
The role of relative permeability in surfactant flooding is very important as it ensures the
transition from immiscible conditions to miscible conditions. Figures 4.2 illustrate this further.
This condition is achieved in eclipse by the use of miscible relative permeability curve with high
capillary number which replaces the traditional immiscible curves with low capillary number.
The transition from immiscible to miscible is described by a function Log10(capillary number).
Miscibility is achieved by interpolation between the immiscible relative permeability curves and
the miscible relative permeability curves.
28
(1)
Figure 4.2: Calculation of the relative permeability curves
4.43 CAPILLARY PRESSURE
Reduction in oil-water capillary pressure gives a corresponding reduction in residual oil. An

increase in concentration of surfactant enables this condition. The equation used by the Eclipse
model is given below

Where
The surface tension at the present surfactant concentration.
ST(Csurf = 0) is the surface tension at zero concentration.
4.44 TREATMENT OF ADSORPTION
Quantity of surfactants adsorbed is a function of the surfactant concentration. Mass of

surfactant adsorbed is given as
!
" #$ " %

29
Where
PORV Pore volume of the cell.
Ø Porosity.
MD The mass density of the rock.
CA(Csurf) Adsorption isotherm as a function of local surfactant concentration in solution.
4.50 KEYWORDS TO ACTIVATE THE SURFACTANT MODEL IN ECLIPSE
4.51 SURFACT
This activates the surfactant model and is specified in the RUNSPEC section. Fig 4.3 shows this.
4.52 SURFST
Specifies water – oil surface tension in the presence of surfactant. Used in the PROPS section,
fig 4.4
4.53 SURVISC
Used to modify water viscosity, appears in the PROP section, fig 4.5
4.54 SURFCAPD
Specifies the Capillary desaturation data, placed in the PROPS section, fig 4.4
30
Figure 4.3: Runspec section showing surfact keyword
Figure 4.5: Eclipse section showing the SURVISC keyword
Fig 4.4: Props section showing the SURFST and SURFCAPD keyword
31
5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 EFFECT OF CONTINUOUS SURFACTANT FLOODING ON RECOVERY FACTOR
Figure 5.1: Effect of continuous surfactant flooding on recovery factor
From Figure 5.1 it can be seen that the recovery factor gets to 92% for the surfactant flooded
reservoir unlike the base case with no surfactant flooding which gives only 75% recovery factor.
The 92% recovery indicates extra recovery of oil that is obtained when interfacial tension
reduces between oil and water leading to more oil being produced.
The 75% recovery for the base case is equally high because the model used is homogenous and
flat leading to a better sweep of the reservoir.
5.12 EFFECT OF CONTINUOUS SURFACTANT FLOODING ON OIL PRODUCTION RATE
Figure 5.2: Effect of continuous surfactant flooding on Oil Production
32
Figure 5.2 shows the effect of continuous surfactant flooding on oil production rate. From the
graph, it can be seen that for the continuous surfactant flooding, there was an increase in
production rate from the point of surfactant injection to about 150Sm3/day. However, the base
case shows a steady decline in production rate for the entire period.
5.13 EFFECT OF CONTINUOUS SURFACTANT FLOODING ON CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION
Figure 5.3: Effect of continuous surfactant flooding on cumulative oil production
Figure 5.3 shows the effect of continuous surfactant flooding on cumulative oil production.
From the graph, it is seen that a certain period of time is needed before the effect of the
surfactant injection become visible. The graph above shows about 100 days. The shorter the
time, the better it becomes for the economics.
5.14 EFFECT OF CONTINUOUS SURFACTANT FLOODING ON WATER PRODUCTION RATE
From Figure 5.4, both the base case and continuous surfactant flood case show water break
through at 150 days. However, there is a decline in water production rate after surfactant was
injected but the base case show a continuous increase in water production rate. This could be
explained by the fact that the residual oil is mobilized and begin to form an oil bank while water
starts to occupy the spaces released by the residual oil thus causing a reduction in water
production.
33
Figure 5.4: Effect of continuous surfactant flooding on water production rate
Figure 5.5: Effect of continuous surfactant flooding on Reservoir Pressure
34
5.15 EFFECT OF CONTINUOUS SURFACTANT INJECTION ON RESERVOIR PRESSURE
Figure 5.5 show the effect of continuous surfactant injection on reservoir pressure. The base
case show a very stable pressure while the continuous surfactant injection show a decline in
reservoir pressure until 540 days where there is an increase again. Increased production from
surfactant means more voidage in the reservoir, thus the decline in reservoir pressure.
5.2 EFFECT OF HIGH INTERFACIAL TENSION ON RECOVERY FACTOR
Figure 5.6 shows the effect of high interfacial tension on recovery factor even with continuous
surfactant flooding. From the figure, the recovery factor for high interfacial tension is 85%,
which is 7% lower from that with lower interfacial tension. Thus surfactant type must reduce
the interfacial tension between water and oil to maximize recovery. Figures 5.7 and 5.8 show
the production rate and cumulative production respectively.
Figure 5.6: Effect of high Interfacial tension on recovery factor in continuous surfactant flood
flood
35
Figure 5.7.: Effect of high Interfacial tension on production rate in continuous surfactant flood
flood
Figure 5.8.: Effect of high Interfacial tension on cumulative production in continuous surfactant flood
flood
36
5.3 EFFECT OF ZERO CAPILLARY PRESSURE ON RECOVERY FACTOR FOR CONTINUOUS
SURFACTANT FLOODING
Figure 5.9 shows the effect of zero capillary pressure on recovery factor for continuous
surfactant flooding. Zero-capillary pressure is favorable to more recovery of oil.
Figure 5.9: Effect of zero capillary pressure on recovery factor in continuous surfactant flood.
Figure 5.10: Comparing between continuous surfactant injection and Surfactant Slug Injection
37
5.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN CONTINUOUS SURFACTANT FLOOD INJECTION AND SLUG
INJECTION
Surfactant slug was injected for 200 days followed by water injection for 400 days. Figure 5.10
is the graph showing the recovery factor.
Continuous injection has a higher recovery than injecting a slug.
5.5 COMPARING PERFORMANCE BETWEEN VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL WELLS FOR

CONTINUOUS SURFACTANT FLOODING
Figure 5.11: Horizontal well placed for continuous surfactant flooding
Figure 5.11 shows the well placed to test the effect of continuous surfactant flooding on
recovery factor compared to vertical well.
Figure 5.12 compares the recovery factor for vertical and horizontal wells. In this instance,
vertical well has better recovery factor than the horizontal wells. This could be attributed to the
few layers in this model signifying that vertical well is sufficient. Also, figure 5.13 gives the
pressure profile. Since horizontal wells have more area open to flow, the pressure decline is
more. This could also explain the lower recovery factor.
38
Figure 5.12: Comparison of recovery factor between vertical and horizontal wells for cont. surf flooding
Figure 5.13: Comparison of Reservoir Pressure between vertical and horizontal wells for cont. surf flooding
39
6.0 CONCLUSION
• After waterflooding, surfactants can be used to recover most of the residual oil trapped
by capillary pressure. The simple model used in this project showed a very high recovery
of 75% even before the use of surfactants. This high recovery could be attributed to the
fact that the synthetic model is homogenous thus making the oil sweep very efficient.
For the Norne E – segment, this is not the case as the reservoir is heterogeneous. Thus
in carrying out a successful surfactant flooding, proper positioning of injection and
production wells is important to achieve maximum oil recovery.
• The time interval between surfactant injection and mobilization of oil bank towards
producing well signifies how long it takes for return on investment to be actualized.
Most successful surfactant injection would require shorter time to mobilize the oil to
the producing well.
• High interfacial tension between oil and water leads to low recovery of residual oil.
Reducing interfacial is very important as a higher recovery would be achieved.
• High capillary pressure leads to unfavorable recovery factor. Low capillary pressure is
desired to recover most of the residual oil trapped after water flooding.
• Continuous surfactant flooding gave better recovery than surfactant slug/water
injection
• Vertical wells gave better recovery in this instance than horizontal wells. This could be
as a result of the layers in this simple model signifying that vertical well is sufficient for
recovery of oil than the horizontal well.
For the Norne-E Segment, future work could entail grid refinement and the determination of
optimum surfactant slug that could be injected to maximize recovery. Also, detail discussion of
chemistry and physics of surfactants would be looked into.
40
REFERENCES
1. Schlumberger Eclipse Reference Manual 2008.1

2. Farouq Ali S.M and Thomas S. ‘A Realistic Look at Enhanced Oil Recovery’ University of
Alberta www.scientiairanica.com/PDF/Articles/00000911/SIO10304.pdf
3. Holmberg K, Jonsson B, Kronberg B, Lindman ,’Surfactants and Polymers in Aqueous
Solution’ 2nd Edition.
4. Thomas S. and Farouq Ali S.M ‘Miscellar Flooding and ASP – Chemical Methods for
Enhanced Oil Recovery’ .The Petroleum Society Paper, 99-73.
5. Green D.W and Willhite, (1998) ‘Enhanced Oil Recovery’ SPE Text-book series Vol 6.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
6. Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry, ‘Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Chemical Formations’
Publication S-06-19.
7. Schramm L.L ‘Surfactants Fundamental and Application in Petroleum Industry’
8. Kleppe J and Skjeveland S.M (1992). SPOR Monograph – ‘Recent Advances in Improved
Oil Recovery Methods for North Sea Sandstone Reservoirs’. Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate, Stavanger, First print Edition
9. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) http://www.npd.no
10. PL 128 ‘Reservoir Management Plan Norne Field’ Norne Field 01A05*183 Statoil (2001)
11. Annual Reservoir Development Plan Norne &URD Field 2006, Statoil
12. Cano Petroleum Limited , http://www.canopetro.com/eor-process
13. Athabasca Oil Sand Co-operation: www.aosc.com
41
APPENDIX A .632 .1940 .0363
.678 .2519 .0280
DATA FILE FOR BASE CASE .724 .320 .0211
.770 .400 .0144
RUNSPEC .816 .492 .0081
TITLE .862 .597 .0023
Surfactant model test case. .880 .642 .000
.908 .716 .000
DIMENS .954 .8500 .000
10 10 3 / 1.00 1.00 .000
OIL
WATER /
--SURFACT 0.0 0.0 0.0
METRIC 1.0 1.0 0.0
TABDIMS /
2 1 40 40 1 40 /
WELLDIMS SOF2 1 TABLES 20 NODES IN EACH FIELD 13:34 5 MAY
2 3 1 2/ 85
GASFIELD .000 .000
'YES' / .046 .000
START .092 .000
1 'MAY' 1990 / .12 .000
NSTACK .138 .000
8/ .184 .001
GRID .23 .006
====================================================== .276 .015
======== .322 .028
PSEUDO .368 .048
DXV .414 .073
10*50 / .460 .105
DYV .506 .145
10*50 / .552 .192
DZ .598 .248
100*0.58 100*0.84 100*0.47 / .644 .312
PERMX .690 .385
100*1172 100*1143 100*1162 / .736 .468
COPY .782 .560
'PERMX' 'PERMY' 1 10 1 10 1 3 / .828 .663
/ .874 .776
PERMZ .92 1.00
100*1050 100*1800 100*500 / /
PORO 0.0 0.0
300*0.3 / 1.0 1.0
TOPS /
100*2600 /
RPTGRID PVTW
/ 277 1.038 4.6E-5 0.318 0.0 /
PROPS
====================================================== PVDO
======== 275 1.314 0.628
SWFN 300 1.308 0.647
.080 .0000 1.76 325 1.302 0.665
.126 .0000 .874 /
.172 .0000 .427
.218 .001 .277 ROCK
.264 .0039 .20 277 4.85E-5 /
.310 .009 .154
.356 .0182 .123 DENSITY
.402 .0314 .0996 860. 1033. 0.853 /
.448 .0500 .081
.494 .0746 .0674 --SURFVISC
.540 .106 .0554 --0.0 0.318
.586 .1458 .0452 --30. 5.0 /
42
FTPTSUR
--SURFADS FTIRSUR
--0.0 0.0000 FTITSUR
--1.0 0.0005 BTCNFSUR
--30.0 0.0005 / 111/
--0.0 0.0000 221/
--1.0 0.0005 331/
--30.0 0.0005 / 441/
551/
--SURFST 552/
--0.0 0.05 553/
--1.0 2.0E-4 661/
--30.0 1.0E-5 / 771/
--SURFCAPD 881/
-- -9 0.0 991/
-- -4.5 0.0 10 10 1 /
-- -2 1.0 10 10 2 /
--10 1.0 / 10 10 3 /
-- -9 0.0 /
-- -4.5 0.0 BOSAT
-- -2 1.0 111/
-- 10 1.0 / 221/
--SURFROCK 331/
--1 2650 / 441/
--2 2650 / 551/
552/
RPTPROPS 553/
-- PROPS Reporting Options 661/
-- 771/
--'SURFVISC' 881/
/ 991/
REGIONS 10 10 1 /
====================================================== 10 10 2 /
======= 10 10 3 /
SATNUM /
300*1 / WTPRSUR
--SURFNUM 'OP' /
300*2 /
RPTREGS BTADSUR
/ 551/
SOLUTION /
======================================================
======= RUNSUM
EQUIL
2600 277 2700 / SCHEDULE
RPTSOL ======================================================
-- =====
-- Initialisation Print Output
-- RPTSCHED FIELD 16:55 18 APR 86
'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=1' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK' 'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=2' 'FIP=2' 'WELLS=2' 'SUMMARY=2'
'FIPPLY=2' 'SURFBLK' 'CPU=2'
'FIPSURF=2' / 'NEWTON=2' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK' 'FIPSALT=2' 'TUNING'
'SURFBLK' 'SURFADS'
SUMMARY 'FIPSURF=2' /
======================================================
===== WELSPECS
'PRODUCER' 'G' 10 10 2600 'OIL' /
WBHP 'INJECTOR' 'G' 1 1 2600 'WAT' /
/ /
FWIR COMPDAT
FOPR 'PRODUCER ' 10 10 1 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
FOPT 'INJECTOR ' 1 1 1 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
FOE /
FWPR
FPR WCONPROD
FTPRSUR 'PRODUCER' 'OPEN' 'RESV' 4* 500 0.0 4* /
43
/
WCONINJE
'INJECTOR' 'WAT' 'OPEN' 'RESV' 1* 500 /
/
TSTEP
3*50 /
--WSURFACT
--'INJECTOR' 30.0 /
/
TSTEP
50 /
--WSURFACT
-- 'INJECTOR' 30.0 /
/
TSTEP
8*50
/
END
44
RPTGRID
APPENDIX B /
PROPS
CONTINUOUS SURFACTANT FLOODING ======================================================
========
SWFN
RUNSPEC .080 .0000 1.76
TITLE .126 .0000 .874
.218 .001 .277
DIMENS .264 .0039 .20
10 10 3 / .310 .009 .154
.356 .0182 .123
OIL .402 .0314 .0996
.448 .0500 .081
WATER .494 .0746 .0674
.540 .106 .0554
SURFACT .586 .1458 .0452
.632 .1940 .0363
METRIC .678 .2519 .0280
.724 .320 .0211
TABDIMS .770 .400 .0144
2 1 40 40 1 40 / .816 .492 .0081
.862 .597 .0023
WELLDIMS .880 .642 .000
2 3 1 2/ .908 .716 .000
.954 .8500 .000
GASFIELD 1.00 1.00 .000
'YES' /
/
START 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 'MAY' 1990 / 1.0 1.0 0.0
/
NSTACK
8/ SOF2 1 TABLES 20 NODES IN EACH FIELD 13:34 5 MAY
85
GRID .000 .000
====================================================== .046 .000
======== .092 .000
.12 .000
PSEUDO .138 .000
.184 .001
DXV .23 .006
10*50 / .276 .015
DYV .322 .028
10*50 / .368 .048
DZ .414 .073
100*0.58 100*0.84 100*0.47 / .460 .105
.506 .145
PERMX .552 .192
100*1172 100*1143 100*1162 / .598 .248
.644 .312
COPY .690 .385
'PERMX' 'PERMY' 1 10 1 10 1 3 / .736 .468
/ .782 .560
.828 .663
PERMZ .874 .776
100*1050 100*1800 100*500 / .92 .900
/
PORO 0.0 0.0
300*0.3 / 1.0 1.0
/
TOPS
100*2600 / PVTW
277 1.038 4.6E-5 0.318 0.0 /
45
PVDO SOLUTION
275 1.314 0.628 ======================================================
300 1.308 0.647 =======
325 1.302 0.665
/
EQUIL
ROCK 2600 277 2700 /
277 4.85E-5 /
RPTSOL
DENSITY --
860. 1033. 0.853 / -- Initialisation Print Output
--
SURFVISC 'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=1' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK'
0.0 0.318 'FIPPLY=2' 'SURFBLK'
30. 5.0 / 'FIPSURF=2' /
SURFADS SUMMARY
0.0 0.0000 ======================================================
1.0 0.0005 =====
30.0 0.0005 /
WBHP
0.0 0.0000 /
1.0 0.0005 FWIR
30.0 0.0005 / FOPR
FOPT
SURFST FOE
0.0 0.05 FWPR
1.0 2.0E-4 FPR
30.0 1.0E-5 / FTPRSUR
FTPTSUR
SURFCAPD FTIRSUR
-9 0.0 FTITSUR
-4.5 0.0 BTCNFSUR
-2 1.0 111/
10 1.0 / 221/
331/
-9 0.0 441/
-4.5 0.0 551/
-2 1.0 552/
10 1.0 / 553/
661/
771/
SURFROCK 881/
1 2650 / 991/
2 2650 / 10 10 1 /
10 10 2 /
RPTPROPS 10 10 3 /
-- PROPS Reporting Options /
-- BOSAT
'SURFVISC' 111/
/ 221/
331/
REGIONS 441/
====================================================== 551/
======= 552/
553/
SATNUM 661/
300*1 / 771/
881/
SURFNUM 991/
300*2 / 10 10 1 /
10 10 2 /
RPTREGS 10 10 3 /
/ /
WTPRSUR
'OP' /
46
BTADSUR
551/
/
RUNSUM
SCHEDULE
======================================================
=====
RPTSCHED FIELD 16:55 18 APR 86

'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=2' 'FIP=2' 'WELLS=2' 'SUMMARY=2'
'CPU=2'
'NEWTON=2' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK' 'FIPSALT=2' 'TUNING'
'SURFBLK' 'SURFADS'
'FIPSURF=2' /
WELSPECS
'PRODUCER' 'G' 10 10 2600 'OIL' /
'INJECTOR' 'G' 1 1 2600 'WAT' /
/
COMPDAT
'PRODUCER ' 10 10 1 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
'INJECTOR ' 1 1 1 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
/
WCONPROD
'PRODUCER' 'OPEN' 'RESV' 4* 500 0.0 4* /
/
WCONINJE
/
TSTEP
3*50 /
WSURFACT
'INJECTOR' 30.0 /
/
TSTEP
50 /
WSURFACT
'INJECTOR' 30.0 /
/
TSTEP
8*50
/
END
47
.402 .0314 .000
.448 .0500 .000
APPENDIX C .494 .0746 .000
.540 .106 .000
DATA FILE FOR ZERO-CAPILLARY PRESSURE .586 .1458 .000
.632 .1940 .000
RUNSPEC .678 .2519 .000
TITLE .724 .320 .000
.816 .492 .000
DIMENS .862 .597 .000
10 10 3 / .880 .642 .000
.908 .716 .000
OIL .954 .8500 .000
WATER 1.00 1.00 .000
SURFACT
METRIC /
TABDIMS 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 1 40 40 1 40 / 1.0 1.0 0.0
WELLDIMS /
2 3 1 2/
GASFIELD SOF2 1 TABLES 20 NODES IN EACH FIELD 13:34 5 MAY
'YES' / 85
START .000 .000
1 'MAY' 1990 / .046 .000
NSTACK .092 .000
8/ .12 .000
GRID .138 .000
====================================================== .184 .001
======== .23 .006
.276 .015
PSEUDO .322 .028
.368 .048
DXV .414 .073
10*50 / .460 .105
DYV .506 .145
10*50 / .552 .192
DZ .598 .248
100*0.58 100*0.84 100*0.47 / .644 .312
.690 .385
PERMX .736 .468
100*1172 100*1143 100*1162 / .782 .560
.828 .663
COPY .874 .776
'PERMX' 'PERMY' 1 10 1 10 1 3 / .92 .900
/ /
PERMZ 0.0 0.0
100*1050 100*1800 100*500 / 1.0 1.0
PORO /
300*0.3 /
PVTW
TOPS 277 1.038 4.6E-5 0.318 0.0 /
100*2600 /
RPTGRID PVDO
/ 275 1.314 0.628
PROPS 300 1.308 0.647
====================================================== 325 1.302 0.665
======== /
SWFN
.080 .0000 .000 ROCK
.126 .0000 .000 277 4.85E-5 /
.172 .0000 .000
.218 .001 .000 DENSITY
.264 .0039 .000 860. 1033. 0.853 /
.310 .009 .000
.356 .0182 .000 SURFVISC
48
0.0 0.318 FOE
30. 5.0 / FWPR
FPR
SURFADS FTPRSUR
0.0 0.0000 FTPTSUR
1.0 0.0005 FTIRSUR
30.0 0.0005 / FTITSUR
BTCNFSUR
0.0 0.0000 111/
1.0 0.0005 221/
30.0 0.0005 / 331/
441/
SURFST 551/
0.0 0.05 552/
1.0 2.0E-4 553/
30.0 1.0E-5 / 661/
771/
SURFCAPD 881/
-9 0.0 991/
-4.5 0.0 10 10 1 /
-2 1.0 10 10 2 /
10 1.0 / 10 10 3 /
-9 0.0 /
-4.5 0.0 BOSAT
-2 1.0 111/
10 1.0 / 221/
SURFROCK 331/
1 2650 / 441/
2 2650 / 551/
552/
RPTPROPS 553/
-- 771/
'SURFVISC' 881/
/ 991/
REGIONS 10 10 1 /
====================================================== 10 10 2 /
======= 10 10 3 /
SATNUM /
300*1 / WTPRSUR
SURFNUM 'OP' /
300*2 /
RPTREGS BTADSUR
/ 551/
SOLUTION /
======================================================
======= RUNSUM
EQUIL
2600 277 2700 / SCHEDULE
RPTSOL ======================================================
-- =====
-- Initialisation Print Output
'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=1' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK' 'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=2' 'FIP=2' 'WELLS=2' 'SUMMARY=2'
'FIPPLY=2' 'SURFBLK' 'CPU=2'
'FIPSURF=2' / 'NEWTON=2' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK' 'FIPSALT=2' 'TUNING'
'SURFBLK' 'SURFADS'
SUMMARY 'FIPSURF=2' /
======================================================
===== WELSPECS
'PRODUCER' 'G' 10 10 2600 'OIL' /
WBHP 'INJECTOR' 'G' 1 1 2600 'WAT' /
/ /
FWIR COMPDAT
FOPR 'PRODUCER ' 10 10 1 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
FOPT 'INJECTOR ' 1 1 1 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
49
/
WCONPROD
/
WCONINJE
/
TSTEP
3*50 /
WSURFACT
'INJECTOR' 30.0 /
/
TSTEP
50 /
WSURFACT
'INJECTOR' 30.0 /
/
TSTEP
8*50
/
END
50
PROPS
======================================================
APPENDIX D ========
SWFN
DATA FILE FOR HIGH INTERFACIAL TENSION .080 .0000 1.76
.126 .0000 .874
RUNSPEC .172 .0000 .427
TITLE .218 .001 .277
.310 .009 .154
DIMENS .356 .0182 .123
10 10 3 / .402 .0314 .0996
.448 .0500 .081
OIL .494 .0746 .0674
WATER .540 .106 .0554
SURFACT .586 .1458 .0452
METRIC .632 .1940 .0363
TABDIMS .678 .2519 .0280
2 1 40 40 1 40 / .724 .320 .0211
.770 .400 .0144
WELLDIMS .816 .492 .0081
2 3 1 2/ .862 .597 .0023
.880 .642 .000
GASFIELD .908 .716 .000
'YES' / .954 .8500 .000
1.00 1.00 .000
START
1 'MAY' 1990 / /
0.0 0.0 0.0
NSTACK 1.0 1.0 0.0
8/ /
GRID
====================================================== SOF2 1 TABLES 20 NODES IN EACH FIELD 13:34 5 MAY
======== 85
.000 .000
PSEUDO .046 .000
.092 .000
DXV .12 .000
10*50 / .138 .000
DYV .184 .001
10*50 / .23 .006
DZ .276 .015
100*0.58 100*0.84 100*0.47 / .322 .028
.368 .048
PERMX .414 .073
100*1172 100*1143 100*1162 / .460 .105
.506 .145
COPY .552 .192
'PERMX' 'PERMY' 1 10 1 10 1 3 / .598 .248
/ .644 .312
.690 .385
PERMZ .736 .468
100*1050 100*1800 100*500 / .782 .560
.828 .663
PORO .874 .776
300*0.3 / .92 .900
/
TOPS 0.0 0.0
100*2600 / 1.0 1.0
/
RPTGRID PVTW
/ 277 1.038 4.6E-5 0.318 0.0 /
PVDO
275 1.314 0.628
300 1.308 0.647
51
325 1.302 0.665 WBHP
/ /
ROCK FWIR
277 4.85E-5 / FOPR
DENSITY FOPT
860. 1033. 0.853 / FOE
SURFVISC FWPR
0.0 0.318 FPR
30. 5.0 / FTPRSUR
SURFADS FTPTSUR
0.0 0.0000 FTIRSUR
1.0 0.0005 FTITSUR
30.0 0.0005 / BTCNFSUR
0.0 0.0000 111/
1.0 0.0005 221/
30.0 0.0005 / 331/
SURFST 441/
0.0 0.05 551/
1.0 8.0E-2 552/
30.0 2.0E-3 / 553/
SURFCAPD 661/
-9 0.0 771/
-4.5 0.0 881/
-2 1.0 991/
10 1.0 / 10 10 1 /
-9 0.0 10 10 2 /
-4.5 0.0 10 10 3 /
-2 1.0 /
10 1.0 / BOSAT
SURFROCK 111/
1 2650 / 221/
2 2650 / 331/
441/
RPTPROPS 551/
-- 553/
'SURFVISC' 661/
/ 771/
REGIONS 881/
====================================================== 991/
======= 10 10 1 /
SATNUM 10 10 2 /
300*1 / 10 10 3 /
SURFNUM /
300*2 / WTPRSUR
RPTREGS 'OP' /
/ BTADSUR
551/
SOLUTION /
====================================================== RUNSUM
======= SCHEDULE
======================================================
=====
EQUIL RPTSCHED FIELD 16:55 18 APR 86
2600 277 2700 / 'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=2' 'FIP=2' 'WELLS=2' 'SUMMARY=2'
'CPU=2'
RPTSOL 'NEWTON=2' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK' 'FIPSALT=2' 'TUNING'
-- 'SURFBLK' 'SURFADS'
-- Initialisation Print Output 'FIPSURF=2' /
--
'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=1' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK' WELSPECS
'FIPPLY=2' 'SURFBLK' 'PRODUCER' 'G' 10 10 2600 'OIL' /
'FIPSURF=2' / 'INJECTOR' 'G' 1 1 2600 'WAT' /
SUMMARY /
====================================================== COMPDAT
===== 'PRODUCER ' 10 10 1 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
52
'INJECTOR ' 1 1 1 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
/
WCONPROD
/
WCONINJE
/
TSTEP
3*50 /
WSURFACT
'INJECTOR' 30.0 /
/
TSTEP
50 /
WSURFACT
'INJECTOR' 30.0 /
/
TSTEP
8*50
/
END
53
RPTGRID
/
APPENDIX E
DATA FILE FOR SURFACTANT SLUG INJECTION PROPS

======================================================
RUNSPEC ========
TITLE
Surfactant model test case.
SWFN
DIMENS .080 .0000 1.76
10 10 3 / .126 .0000 .874
.172 .0000 .427
OIL .218 .001 .277
.264 .0039 .20
WATER .310 .009 .154
.356 .0182 .123
SURFACT .402 .0314 .0996
.448 .0500 .081
METRIC .494 .0746 .0674
.540 .106 .0554
TABDIMS .586 .1458 .0452
2 1 40 40 1 40 / .632 .1940 .0363
.678 .2519 .0280
WELLDIMS .724 .320 .0211
2 3 1 2/ .770 .400 .0144
.816 .492 .0081
GASFIELD .862 .597 .0023
'YES' / .880 .642 .000
.908 .716 .000
START .954 .8500 .000
1 'MAY' 1990 / 1.00 1.00 .000
NSTACK /
8/ 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 1.0 0.0
GRID /
======================================================
======== SOF2 1 TABLES 20 NODES IN EACH FIELD 13:34 5 MAY
85
PSEUDO .000 .000
.046 .000
DXV .092 .000
10*50 / .12 .000
DYV .138 .000
10*50 / .184 .001
DZ .23 .006
100*0.58 100*0.84 100*0.47 / .276 .015
.322 .028
PERMX .368 .048
100*1172 100*1143 100*1162 / .414 .073
.460 .105
COPY .506 .145
'PERMX' 'PERMY' 1 10 1 10 1 3 / .552 .192
/ .598 .248
.644 .312
PERMZ .690 .385
100*1050 100*1800 100*500 / .736 .468
.782 .560
PORO .828 .663
300*0.3 / .874 .776
.92 .900
TOPS /
100*2600 / 0.0 0.0
1.0 1.0
/
54
RPTREGS
PVTW /
277 1.038 4.6E-5 0.318 0.0 /
SOLUTION
PVDO ======================================================
275 1.314 0.628 =======
300 1.308 0.647
325 1.302 0.665
/ EQUIL
2600 277 2700 /
ROCK
277 4.85E-5 / RPTSOL
--
DENSITY -- Initialisation Print Output
860. 1033. 0.853 / --
'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=1' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK'
SURFVISC 'FIPPLY=2' 'SURFBLK'
0.0 0.318 'FIPSURF=2' /
30. 5.0 /
SUMMARY
SURFADS ======================================================
0.0 0.0000 =====
1.0 0.0005
30.0 0.0005 / WBHP
/
0.0 0.0000 FWIR
1.0 0.0005 FOPR
30.0 0.0005 / FOPT
FOE
SURFST FWPR
0.0 0.05 FPR
1.0 2.0E-4 FTPRSUR
30.0 1.0E-5 / FTPTSUR
FTIRSUR
SURFCAPD FTITSUR
-9 0.0 BTCNFSUR
-4.5 0.0 111/
-2 1.0 221/
10 1.0 / 331/
441/
-9 0.0 551/
-4.5 0.0 552/
-2 1.0 553/
10 1.0 / 661/
771/
881/
SURFROCK 991/
1 2650 / 10 10 1 /
2 2650 / 10 10 2 /
10 10 3 /
RPTPROPS /
-- PROPS Reporting Options BOSAT
-- 111/
'SURFVISC' 221/
/ 331/
441/
REGIONS 551/
====================================================== 552/
======= 553/
661/
SATNUM 771/
300*1 / 881/
991/
SURFNUM 10 10 1 /
300*2 / 10 10 2 /
10 10 3 /
55
/
WTPRSUR
'OP' /
BTADSUR
551/
/
RUNSUM
SCHEDULE
======================================================
=====
RPTSCHED FIELD 16:55 18 APR 86

'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=2' 'FIP=2' 'WELLS=2' 'SUMMARY=2'
'CPU=2'
'NEWTON=2' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK' 'FIPSALT=2' 'TUNING'
'SURFBLK' 'SURFADS'
'FIPSURF=2' /
WELSPECS
'PRODUCER' 'G' 10 10 2600 'OIL' /
'INJECTOR' 'G' 1 1 2600 'WAT' /
/
COMPDAT
'PRODUCER ' 10 10 1 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
'INJECTOR ' 1 1 1 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
/
WCONPROD
/
WCONINJE
/
TSTEP
3*50 /
WSURFACT
'INJECTOR' 25.0 /
/
TSTEP
20 /
WSURFACT
'INJECTOR' 0.0 /
/
WCONINJE
/
TSTEP
8*50
/
END
56
.448 .0500 .081
APPENDIX F .494 .0746 .0674
.540 .106 .0554
DATA FILE FOR INJECTION WITH HORIZONTAL WELL .586 .1458 .0452
.632 .1940 .0363
RUNSPEC .678 .2519 .0280
TITLE .724 .320 .0211
.816 .492 .0081
DIMENS .862 .597 .0023
10 10 3 / .880 .642 .000
OIL .908 .716 .000
WATER .954 .8500 .000
SURFACT 1.00 1.00 .000
METRIC
TABDIMS /
2 1 40 40 1 40 / 0.0 0.0 0.0
WELLDIMS 1.0 1.0 0.0
2 3 1 2/ /
GASFIELD
'YES' / SOF2 1 TABLES 20 NODES IN EACH FIELD 13:34 5 MAY
START 85
1 'MAY' 1990 / .000 .000
NSTACK .046 .000
8/ .092 .000
GRID .12 .000
====================================================== .138 .000
======== .184 .001
.23 .006
PSEUDO .276 .015
.322 .028
DXV .368 .048
10*50 / .414 .073
DYV .460 .105
10*50 / .506 .145
DZ .552 .192
100*0.58 100*0.84 100*0.47 / .598 .248
.644 .312
PERMX .690 .385
100*1172 100*1143 100*1162 / .736 .468
.782 .560
COPY .828 .663
'PERMX' 'PERMY' 1 10 1 10 1 3 / .874 .776
/ .92 .900
/
PERMZ 0.0 0.0
100*1050 100*1800 100*500 / 1.0 1.0
/
PORO
300*0.3 / PVTW
277 1.038 4.6E-5 0.318 0.0 /
TOPS
100*2600 / PVDO
RPTGRID 275 1.314 0.628
/PROPS 300 1.308 0.647
====================================================== 325 1.302 0.665
======== /
SWFN
.080 .0000 1.76 ROCK
.126 .0000 .874 277 4.85E-5 /
.172 .0000 .427
.218 .001 .277 DENSITY
.264 .0039 .20 860. 1033. 0.853 /
.310 .009 .154
.356 .0182 .123 SURFVISC
.402 .0314 .0996 0.0 0.318
57
30. 5.0 / WBHP
/
SURFADS FWIR
0.0 0.0000 FOPR
1.0 0.0005 FOPT
30.0 0.0005 / FOE
FWPR
0.0 0.0000 FPR
1.0 0.0005 FTPRSUR
30.0 0.0005 / FTPTSUR
FTIRSUR
SURFST FTITSUR
0.0 0.05 BTCNFSUR
1.0 2.0E-4 111/
30.0 1.0E-5 / 221/
331/
SURFCAPD 441/
-9 0.0 551/
-4.5 0.0 552/
-2 1.0 553/
10 1.0 / 661/
771/
-9 0.0 881/
-4.5 0.0 991/
-2 1.0 10 10 1 /
10 1.0 / 10 10 2 /
10 10 3 /
/
SURFROCK BOSAT
1 2650 / 111/
2 2650 / 221/
331/
RPTPROPS 441/
-- 552/
'SURFVISC' 553/
/ 661/
771/
REGIONS 881/
====================================================== 991/
======= 10 10 1 /
10 10 2 /
SATNUM 10 10 3 /
300*1 / /
WTPRSUR
SURFNUM 'OP' /
300*2 /
BTADSUR
RPTREGS 551/
/ /
SOLUTION RUNSUM
======================================================
======= SCHEDULE
EQUIL ======================================================
2600 277 2700 / =====
RPTSOL
-- Initialisation Print Output 'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=2' 'FIP=2' 'WELLS=2' 'SUMMARY=2'
-- 'CPU=2'
'PRES' 'SOIL' 'SWAT' 'RESTART=1' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK' 'NEWTON=2' 'OILAPI' 'FIPTR=2' 'TBLK' 'FIPSALT=2' 'TUNING'
'FIPPLY=2' 'SURFBLK' 'SURFBLK' 'SURFADS'
'FIPSURF=2' / 'FIPSURF=2' /
SUMMARY
====================================================== WELSPECS
===== 'PRODUCER' 'G' 10 10 2600 'OIL' /
58
'INJECTOR' 'G' 1 1 2600 'WAT' /
/
COMPDAT
'PRODUCER ' 10 10 1 1 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
'PRODUCER ' 9 9 2 2 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
'PRODUCER ' 8 8 3 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
'INJECTOR ' 1 1 1 1 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
'INJECTOR ' 2 2 2 2 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
'INJECTOR ' 3 3 3 3 'OPEN' 0 .0 157E-3 /
/
WCONPROD
/
WCONINJE
/
TSTEP
3*50 /
WSURFACT
'INJECTOR' 30.0 /
/
TSTEP
50 /
WSURFACT
'INJECTOR' 30.0 /
/
TSTEP
8*50
/
END
59

Enhanced Oil Recovery Manu

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

Enhanced Oil Recovery Manu

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY:

SURFACTANT FLOODING AS A POSSIBILITY FOR

RESERVOIR ENGINEERING SPECIALIZATION PROJECT

CHINENYE CLARA EMEGWALU

SUPERVISOR: PROFESSOR JON KLEPPE

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING AND APPLIED GEOPHYSICS

EOR: Surfactant flooding Possibility for Norne E- Segment

APPENDIX ECLIPSE DATA FILES

A. Base Case Data File 42

Figure 1.1: Classification of EOR Methods 5

Figure 2.1: Surfactant molecule 6

Figure 3.1: Location of Norne Field 12

Figure 4.1: Synthetic model for Surfactant Flooding Simulation 26

Figure 5.1: Effect of Continuous Surfactant Flooding on Oil Recovery 32

Table 5: Residual Oil Saturation in Layer 5, I Direction 25

Table 9: Relative Permeability Table 27

In carrying out a successful surfactant flooding, it is pertinent to evaluate the rock

1.21 CHEMICAL PROCESSES

1.22 MISCIBLE PROCESSES

1.23 MOBILITY-CONTROLLED PROCESSES

1.24 THERMAL PROCESSES.

Figure 1.1 shows a classification of EOR methods.

A surfactant is characterized by its tendency to absorb at surfaces and interfaces. ‘Interface’

2.1 SURFACTANT FLOODING

2.21 CAPILLARY NUMBER

 = Effective flow rate

In water-wet rocks, the capillary number becomes

Ø = Contact angle measured through the fluid with highest density

2.22 VOLUMETRIC SWEEP EFFICIENCY

2.23 INTERACTION BETWEEN SURFACTANT AND ROCK (RETENTION)

Figure 2.4 shows the different Regions of adsorption.

Region 2: Indicates an increase in adsorption because the hydrophobic chain of surfactant

Region 4: At the Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC), a plateau is obtained.

2.30 ADVANCES IN STUDIES ON SURFACTANT FLOODING IN THE NORTH SEA

3.1 RESERVOIR COMMUNICATION & STRATIGRAPHIC BARRIERS

• Garn 3/Garn 2 – carbonate cemented layer at top Garn 2

Well TYPE CONTENTS STATUS

Table (3) shows the formations penetrated by the wells in E-Segment

Zone Fluid Present

3.22 CUMMULATIVE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FOR NORNE E-SEGMENT

3.23 WATER CUT AND GAS OIL RATIO

Figure 3.13: Bo vs Pressure for the Norne E-Segments.

3.30 RESERVOIR MODELING OF THE E-SEGMENT USING THE ECLIPSE SIMULATOR

Figure 3.14: showing the Norne E-Segment and wells

Figure 3.15: showing the Norne E-Segment and wells

Figure 3.16: Residual Oil Saturation of Norne E-Segment after waterflooding

Figure 3.17: Residual Oil Saturation in block I=15, J=74, K=7

3.41 RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION IN WATER-SWEPT ZONES.

BLOCKS RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION BLOCKS RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION

LAYER 6 ALONG J DIRECTION

4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SYNTHETIC MODEL

Figure 4.1: Synthetic model for surfactant flooding simulation

4.2.1 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY TABLE

The following cases were simulated;

• Base case with only water flooding.

4.4 MECHANISM OF SURFACTANT SIMULATION IN ECLIPSE MODEL

4.41 SURFACTANT CONSERVATION EQUATION

4.42 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODEL

4.43 CAPILLARY PRESSURE

Reduction in oil-water capillary pressure gives a corresponding reduction in residual oil. An

  The surface tension at the present surfactant concentration.

ST(Csurf = 0) is the surface tension at zero concentration.

4.44 TREATMENT OF ADSORPTION

= Effective flow rate

The surface tension at the present surfactant concentration.