Injection Water Management

Opportunities and Challenges

Mukul M. Sharma
Professor and Chairman
Department of Petroleum & Geosystems Engineering
University of Texas at Austin
 Many Reasons to Inject Water
ƒ Waterflooding (recover oil)
– Produced water
– Sea water
– Fresh water source
ƒ Pressure maintenance
ƒ Water disposal
– Produced water
Regardless of the source, water handling
and injection often is the single biggest
operating cost for producers.
 Subsurface Water Injection
ƒ We estimate ~ 300 million bbl of water/day
is injected into the subsurface.
ƒ We estimate that over $50 billion is spent
annually on water injection.
ƒ Stricter offshore water quality requirements
favor water reinjection for disposal.
ƒ Produced water/oil ratio increasing in
mature fields.
Opportunities and Challenges
Challenges
ƒ Design water handling and injection systems to
reduce the cost of water injection.
– Specify injection water quality, rates & pressures
– Subsurface separation?
– Subsea vs topsides
ƒ Reduce water cut (the holy grail).

Opportunities
ƒ Major cost reductions to improve production
economics.
ƒ Significant improvements in oil recovery.
 The Cost of Water Injection
ƒ Fluids Handling Costs
ƒ Piping and Transportation
ƒ Pumping

Costs Depend on
Location and
Objectives
ƒ P maintenance
ƒ Water disposal
ƒ Waterflooding
 Decisions, Decisions!!!
Your water management decisions will have a
very significant impact on project economics.
ƒ How clean should the water be?
– Controls design of the treatment facility.
ƒ Injection rates and pressure?
– Injector performance ?
– Impact on oil recovery?
ƒ Well completion design for injectors
ƒ Topsides vs sub-sea separation.
ƒ Downhole vs surface separation.
 Down-hole Separation
Opportunities
ƒ Minimizes surface facilities
ƒ Minimizes fluids handling
ƒ Reduced lifting costs
 Down-hole Separation
Challenges
ƒ Not widely used because:
– Needs right wellbore configuration
– Reservoir requirements
– Needs expensive hardware
– Downhole water quality
– Marginal economic benefits
– System maintenance

ƒ Ultimately applicable in only

a small number of cases
Sub-Sea Separation

Separator

XT Pump XT

Produced Water
Oil Production Injection
 Sub-Sea Separation
Opportunities
ƒ Minimizes topsides space and equipment
requirements
ƒ Reduced risk of hydrate formation in lines.
ƒ Allows higher oil flow rates since less water is
being pumped
ƒ Reduces the hydrostatic head (back pressure)
on the risers and flow lines.
ƒ Re-injection of the separated water and gas can
reduce disposal costs and maintain reservoir
pressure.
 Sub-Sea Separation
Challenges
ƒ Expensive equipment and installation
ƒ Water separation and water quality
ƒ Sand production
ƒ Applicable in some fields (deep water,
high water-cut) late in the life of the field.
ƒ Water quality for injection.
ƒ Location of appropriate injection zones.
 Fluids Handling Decisions
ƒ How clean should the water be?
– Controls design of the treatment facility.
ƒ Injection rates and pressure?
– Injector performance ?
– Impact on oil recovery?
ƒ Well completion design for injectors
ƒ Topsides vs sub-sea separation.
ƒ Downhole vs surface separation.
 Gulf of Mexico Case Study
Water Injection Project History
ƒ Expected injection rates: 10,000
bbl/day/well
ƒ Avoidance of fracturing was essential to:
(a) avoid early water breakthrough, and
(b) maintain water injection in the target
sand
ƒ 1 Darcy sand, gravel pack completions.
ƒ Low initial injectivity, high skins.
 Waterflood Facilities (GOM)
ƒ Seawater taken from 150’ subsea
ƒ Deoxygenation to 200 ppb by countercurrent gas
stripping
ƒ Deoxygenated to <10 ppb by chemical scavengers
ƒ Sodium hypochlorite used for bacteria control
ƒ Calcium carbonate scale inhibitor used
ƒ Primary multimedia filters used
ƒ Secondary cartridge filters (5 to 10 µm)
 Water Quality (GOM)

ƒ Solids content in injection waters, 1 to 7 ppm

ƒ Average particle size 2 to 3 µm
ƒ Elemental analysis performed on digested
solids
ƒ Excellent water quality
ƒ Simple rules of thumb predict long half life
ƒ Rather rapid decline in injectivity actually
observed
 Injection Rate and Pump
Pressure Well A10
(From Sharma et. al. 1996)
12000 3500
3000

Pump pressure
10000
HC 2500
8000
2000

(psi)
6000
1500
4000
1000
2000 500
Mud Aci
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Days
 Injectivity Decline Well A10
3.5
10% HCl Filter change from Mud acid Simulated
3.0 treatment 5 µm to 10µm treatmen

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (days
 Prudhoe Bay
Water Injection Experience
ƒ 1.2 MMbbl/day produced water and 0.85
MMbbl/day of seawater injected via 159
injectors.
ƒ No decline in injectivity when injecting up to
2000 ppm solids and oil.
ƒ All injectors are fractured.
ƒ PW (150 0F) frac gradient = 0.57- 0.6
ƒ SW (80 0F) frac gradient = 0.53 - 0.54
ƒ Well orientation affects injectivity.
Performance Plot for Well H-09i
(From Martins et. al., 1994)
Effect of Well Azimuth and Deviation
(From Martins et. al., 1994)

600
Increased Intercept Pressure

500

400

300

200
Unfavorable
100 40-60

20-40
0
0-20 Well
Unfavorable 60-90 Deviation
30-60
0-30
Well Azimuth
 Wytch Farm Field
Paige and Murray(1994)
Pressure
Flow
rate bar
bbl/day 180
20,000
Injection
Rate
15,000
140

10,000
Pressure

100
5,000
15 ppm solids
0 60
1 200 400
Time(days)
 Forties Field Experience
(1975-1996)

ƒ 240,000 bbl of water injected in 1996.

ƒ Core flow experiments indicated 90%
reduction in injectivity over 6 months.
ƒ Removal of fine filters had no adverse
effects on injectivity of sea water.
ƒ Injection of 50-1200 ppm oil and 5 to 50
ppm solids resulted in I/Io=0.7 long term.
 Ula, Magnus and Gyda Fields

ƒ Removal of fine filters had no impact on

injectivity.
ƒ Hydraulic impedence testing on 50
injectors showed that they were all
fractured.
 Injection Well Fracturing
ƒ Most water injection wells are fractured.
ƒ Injection of suspended solids and oil droplets
can quickly plug the formation.
ƒ When the BHP exceeds the frac
gradient, fractures are created.
ƒ Thermal stresses can be important.
ƒ Managing these fractures is key to
successful water injection.
Effect of Injection Well Fracturing
ƒ Growing injection well fractures affect
reservoir sweep and oil recovery.
ƒ Existing commercial reservoir
simulators do not handle
Lf
growing injection well
fractures. t

ƒ Injector physics must be built

into well models.
 Injection Water Management Research

Injection Well Models Core flow tests

Combining single well models Large block tests

with reservoir simulators

Distributed Models
Oily Water Injection

Horizontal /Multilateral Injection Into Soft Sands

Injectors

Case Studies
We have Tracked Fractures
in Simulated Injection Wells
σ1 = 2,000 psi

σh = 1,450 psi

pp = 700 psi
 Pressure at Various Ports
2500 Fracture initiation
Red Rust acrylic particles
2300 Wellbore
Pressure

2100

1900
Pressure (psi)

1700

1500
P1 P2
1300
P4
1100 P5

900
Pore
700 Pressure

500
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time (hour)
Injectivity Remains Constant
0.045

0.04

0.035

0.03
Injectivity

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 5 10 15 20

Injection Time (Hrs)

 Lessons Learnt
ƒ Injectivity remains essentially constant (despite
plugging by particles).
ƒ The rate of fracture growth is closely related to
particle trapping.
ƒ Invasion depth from fracture face is shallow.
ƒ Injected particles end up mostly at the fracture
tip except when fracture is plugged.
ƒ No fracture growth when clear brine is injected.
 Unique Aspects of
Injection Well Modeling
ƒ Formation and fracture plugging
ƒ Fracture propagation controlled by
formation and fracture plugging
ƒ Thermal stresses
ƒ Pore pressure induced stresses
ƒ Fracture geometry evolves with time
ƒ Coupling to reservoir models
 Particle Plugging

Pwf Pr
 Filtration Equations
∂ (φc ) ∂c ∂D ∂D
+u + =0 = λ uc
∂t ∂x ∂t ∂t

λ = 0.72 As N 1/ 8
Lo N R
15 / 8
+ 2.4 × 10 As N G N R
−3 1 .2 − 0 .4

(Rajgopalan and Tien(1976))

Deposited Particles Reduce φ and k

φ 3
11
φ (x, t) = φ0 − D(x, t) k=
5(1−φ) S τ
2 2
 Thermal Stresses and
Pore Pressure Effects
For Fracture propagation Ptip > σ 1 + σ SE
(Perkins & Krech (1968))

σ 1 = (σ H )min + ∆σ 1T + ∆σ 1P

(1 − ν ) ∆ σ 1T ( bo / a o ) Cooled front bo
=
βE∆T 1 + ( bo / a o ) ao

Waterflood front
 Flow Equations
Pwf = PR + ∆P1 + ∆P2 + ∆P3 + ∆Ps + ∆Pf + ∆Pp

Waterflood front

Thermal front

PR ∆P1 ∆P2 ∆P3

Single Well Model
Single Well Model
 Effect of Injected Particle Concentration
(No Thermal Stresses, Swi=1)

1.0
3 ppm
I (t ) Pwfo − Pr 10 ppm
0.8 α (t ) = =
Injectivity Ratio

I0 Pwf (t ) − Pr 30 ppm

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 50 100 150 200

Injection Time (days)

 Effect of Injected Particle Concentration
(No Thermal Stresses, Swi=1)

18 3 ppm
3 ppm10 ppm
u re L e n g t h ((feet)

15 10 ppm
30 ppm

K
feet)

30 ppm
12
F ra c t Length

9
Time
6
Fracture Pressure
Fracture

BHP
0 50 100 150 200

Injection Time
Injection (Days)
Time (days) Initial BHP

Time
Anatomy of a Thermal Fracture
(∆T=30 C, Cinj=100ppm)
24.0
Fracture Initiation
σmin+σSE+∆Pf
23.5
P re s s u re (M P a )

23.0

BHP
22.5
sigma min.

22.0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Injection Time (days)

 Effect of Thermal Stresses
(q=500m3/day, Swi=1)

40
(feet)

30
(feet)
Length
Length

20
Delta =T=0
50 C
T T=0 C
Fracture

Delta C
10 Delta
Delta =T=40
25 CC
T T=25
Fracture

Delta T T=50
Delta =T=50
0C CC

0
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
Injection Time
Injection Time (days)
(Days)
Thermal and Particle Plugging Effects

250 ∆ T=60t=60
Delta C C
100 ppm
F ractu re L en g th (feet)

200 1000 ppm

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200
Injection Time (days)
 Coupling the Injector Model
with a Reservoir Simulator
ƒ The fracture length from the single well
model is used to determine the grid blocks
penetrated by the fracture
ƒ Fracture is considered to be infinite
conducting (high permeability)
ƒ The permeability field is
Y dy
reset in the reservoir
simulator

X
 Our Approach
Phenomenological Decomposition

Reservoir Simulator

Flow Rate, Time Step Fracture Length

Cumulative Injection Skin
Average Rsvr. Pressure Damaged Permeability

Single Well Model

 Single Well Model
ƒ Captures near well bore physics on a
fine grid.
ƒ Correctly account for effects important
only in the near wellbore region.
ƒ Single well model allows for
– Particle plugging
– Growth of injection well fractures
 Reservoir Simulator
ƒ Captures large-scale features such as
reservoir heterogeneity
ƒ Accounts for the changes predicted by
the single well models on the overall
reservoir performance
– Effect of changed injectivities
– Effect of growing injection well
fractures
 Speeding up Computations
OPTIMA: A Distributed Computing Tool
Local Machine Server Clients

Server
Program

•Well file generator

•Reservoir simulator •Client Program
•Administrative Tools •Single well model
Effect of Injection Well Fracturing on
Reservoir Sweep (A Simple Example)

ƒ Well positions in a five spot pattern

ƒ No flow boundaries
ƒ Compare oil recovery
Lf
ƒ fractured cases
t
ƒ unfractured cases
Configuration I

Fracture grows towards

the producing wells
Unfractured Case
(Without Single Well Model)
Fractured Case
(With Single Well Model)
 Effect of Fracture Length
Injector Producer Spacing=500 ft

5
% Change in O il Recovery

-5

-10

-15

-20
0 100 200 300 400 500
Fracture Length after 1000 days
Configuration II

Fracture is oriented
away from the wells
Unfractured Case
Fractured Case
 Effect of Fracture Length
Injector Producer Spacing=500 ft

5
% C h a n g e in O il R e c o v e ry

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Fracture Length after 1000 days
Effect of Heterogeneity

In homogeneous formations
the fracture lags behind the
waterflood front
Effect of Heterogeneity

ƒ In low permeability layers,

the fracture may overtake
the flood front
ƒ More oil is bypassed in the
low permeability layers

500 md

10 md
 Effect of Heterogeneity
Injector Producer Spacing=500 feet
% Change in Oil Recovery

5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Homogeneous
-30
Heterogeneous
-35

0 100 200 300 400 500

Fracture Length after 1000 days (feet)
Injection into multiple zones can
lead to complex injection and
sweep patterns.

σhmin1 = 4.3 MPa, h1 = 5m

σhmin2 = 4.8 MPa , h2 = 10m
 Layer 1 Takes All the Water
Not What we had in Mind
Fraction of Flow

Injection Time (Days)

Fracture Propagates in Layer 1
Fracture Length
(feet)

Injection Time (Days)

 Injection into Multiple Zones
Challenges / Opportunities
ƒ Single vs multiple injection strings.
ƒ Conduct cost benefit analysis for flow
control devices.
ƒ Run models to understand the
possibility of plugging and fracturing of
different zones.
ƒ This strategy can offer flexibility and
control over where the water goes.
 Effect of Fracturing
Horizontal Injectors

Producer

500-1000 m
Oil Column
Spacing
Oil Water
Contact Injector

100 m Water
Column
 Effect of Injection Well
Fracturing on Oil Recovery
Producer

Bypassed
Regions
500-1000 m of the Reservoir

Growing Injection Waterflood

Well Fracture Front

Injector
 Injecting into Poorly Consolidated
Formations: Some Unique Challenges
ƒ Completion decisions are more complicated.
ƒ Injection water plugs off sand control devices
(gravel packs, screens).
ƒ Sudden changes in injection pressures can
cause sand failure.
ƒ Injectors fill up with sand if no sand control is
in place.
ƒ Fracturing is not easily detected and is hard
to model.
ƒ Fracture containment issues.
 Injecting into Poorly Consolidated
Formations: Opportunities
ƒ Large solids storage capacity in diffuse
fractures.
ƒ Good candidates for waste injection (drill
solids, oilfield and refinery waste).
ƒ An excellent alternative for waste
disposal, if implemented properly.

σHmin
 Conclusions
ƒ Subsurface injection of produced water is
becoming the disposal method of choice.
ƒ Better management of injection water can have
a large impact on oil & gas production
economics.
ƒ Water quality / treatment facility design
decisions are critical and must be carefully
made on a case by case basis.
ƒ Subsurface separation is thus far turning out to
be of limited applicability.
ƒ Sub-sea separation and injection presents
both tremendous opportunities and challenges.
 Conclusions
ƒ In fractured injectors the injectivity decline
depends very little on water quality. Not so in
unfractured injectors.
ƒ The combination of fracture plugging, thermal
stresses, phase mobilities and heterogeneities can
give rise to complicated injectivity behavior.
ƒ Growing injection well fractures can have an
important effect on reservoir sweep.
ƒ Simulation tools should be used to aid in facilities
and completion design and in selecting injection
patterns to maximize oil recovery.
 Co-Workers, Collaborators
ƒ Phani B. Gadde ƒ Lee Morganthaler
ƒ Mingjiao Yu ƒ Bill Landrum
ƒ Erik Wennberg ƒ Kris Bansal
ƒ Shutang Pang ƒ Nick Paris

For further details, my contact:

msharma@mail.utexas.edu
 Acknowledgement
ƒ SPE Foundation for funding this trip.
ƒ This work was made possible by
companies supporting the Injection
Water Management JIP: BHP,
ChevronTexaco, Conoco, Shell, TF-Elf,
Petrobras.
ƒ The State of Texas ATP program.
OPTIMA Administrative Tools

• Allow the user to

submit jobs and
communicate with the
server
• Provide application
life-cycle control
• Provide the user with
status of the various
processes
 Test Specifications
ƒ Clients
– 15 Identical IBM PCs
– 667 MHz, Intel P-III Processors
– 256 MB RAM
ƒ Server
– 800 MHz, Intel P-III Processor
– 256 MB RAM
– 10 Mbps Network Card

ƒ Data Transfer per run: 7 MB

 OPTIMA Status Frame
Job Path on Unique ID assigned
Local Machine by server Result File
Name on
Local
machine

Client Port

Client IP
addresses

Job Status
Processing Times for 5-minute Jobs
200

150
Time (min)

100

15 CPUs
50
10 CPUs
1 CPU
0
0 100 200 300 400
Number of Jobs
Run Times Per Job (5-minute Jobs)
10
Time (min)

0.1
0 5 10 15
Number of CPUs
Opportunities and Challenges
Challenges
ƒ Design water handling and injection systems to
reduce the cost of water injection.
– Specify injection water quality, rates & pressures
– Subsurface separation?
– Subsea vs topsides
ƒ The single well model can be used to address
these challenges.
Opportunities
ƒ Significant improvements in oil recovery.
ƒ Cost reductions to improve production
economics.
 A Real Opportunity

Using Injection Well Fractures

to Maximize Oil Recovery

Coupling Single Well Models with

a Reservoir Simulator

University of Texas at Austin

Traditional Domain Decomposition

ƒ Domain decomposition involves

– Breaking the reservoir into domains
– Large volumes of data is exchanged between
domains (unsuitable for distributed computing)
 Phenomenological Decomposition
ƒ Decomposition based on problem physics
– Single Well Models
– Reservoir Simulation Models
Single Well
Models

Reservoir
Simulation
Models
Injectivity Remains Constant

0.04

0.03
In je ctiv ity

0.02

0.01

0
26 28 30 32 34 36
Injection Time (Hrs)
Which is more expensive to purchase:
drinking water or crude oil?

Bottled
Crude Oil Gasoline Water Ice Cream

$28 $54 $189 $1100

Tabasco
Coca Cola Flonase
Milk Sauce
$79 $615,240
$150 $2660