Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Mukul M. Sharma
Professor and Chairman
Department of Petroleum & Geosystems Engineering
University of Texas at Austin
Many Reasons to Inject Water
Waterflooding (recover oil)
– Produced water
– Sea water
– Fresh water source
Pressure maintenance
Water disposal
– Produced water
Regardless of the source, water handling
and injection often is the single biggest
operating cost for producers.
Subsurface Water Injection
We estimate ~ 300 million bbl of water/day
is injected into the subsurface.
We estimate that over $50 billion is spent
annually on water injection.
Stricter offshore water quality requirements
favor water reinjection for disposal.
Produced water/oil ratio increasing in
mature fields.
Opportunities and Challenges
Challenges
Design water handling and injection systems to
reduce the cost of water injection.
– Specify injection water quality, rates & pressures
– Subsurface separation?
– Subsea vs topsides
Reduce water cut (the holy grail).
Opportunities
Major cost reductions to improve production
economics.
Significant improvements in oil recovery.
The Cost of Water Injection
Fluids Handling Costs
Piping and Transportation
Pumping
Costs Depend on
Location and
Objectives
P maintenance
Water disposal
Waterflooding
Decisions, Decisions!!!
Your water management decisions will have a
very significant impact on project economics.
How clean should the water be?
– Controls design of the treatment facility.
Injection rates and pressure?
– Injector performance ?
– Impact on oil recovery?
Well completion design for injectors
Topsides vs sub-sea separation.
Downhole vs surface separation.
Down-hole Separation
Opportunities
Minimizes surface facilities
Minimizes fluids handling
Reduced lifting costs
Down-hole Separation
Challenges
Not widely used because:
– Needs right wellbore configuration
– Reservoir requirements
– Needs expensive hardware
– Downhole water quality
– Marginal economic benefits
– System maintenance
Separator
XT Pump XT
Produced Water
Oil Production Injection
Sub-Sea Separation
Opportunities
Minimizes topsides space and equipment
requirements
Reduced risk of hydrate formation in lines.
Allows higher oil flow rates since less water is
being pumped
Reduces the hydrostatic head (back pressure)
on the risers and flow lines.
Re-injection of the separated water and gas can
reduce disposal costs and maintain reservoir
pressure.
Sub-Sea Separation
Challenges
Expensive equipment and installation
Water separation and water quality
Sand production
Applicable in some fields (deep water,
high water-cut) late in the life of the field.
Water quality for injection.
Location of appropriate injection zones.
Fluids Handling Decisions
How clean should the water be?
– Controls design of the treatment facility.
Injection rates and pressure?
– Injector performance ?
– Impact on oil recovery?
Well completion design for injectors
Topsides vs sub-sea separation.
Downhole vs surface separation.
Gulf of Mexico Case Study
Water Injection Project History
Expected injection rates: 10,000
bbl/day/well
Avoidance of fracturing was essential to:
(a) avoid early water breakthrough, and
(b) maintain water injection in the target
sand
1 Darcy sand, gravel pack completions.
Low initial injectivity, high skins.
Waterflood Facilities (GOM)
Seawater taken from 150’ subsea
Deoxygenation to 200 ppb by countercurrent gas
stripping
Deoxygenated to <10 ppb by chemical scavengers
Sodium hypochlorite used for bacteria control
Calcium carbonate scale inhibitor used
Primary multimedia filters used
Secondary cartridge filters (5 to 10 µm)
Water Quality (GOM)
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
1.2 MMbbl/day produced water and 0.85
MMbbl/day of seawater injected via 159
injectors.
No decline in injectivity when injecting up to
2000 ppm solids and oil.
All injectors are fractured.
PW (150 0F) frac gradient = 0.57- 0.6
SW (80 0F) frac gradient = 0.53 - 0.54
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)
Distributed Models
Oily Water Injection
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
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
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
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
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
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)
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200
Injection Time (days)
Coupling the Injector Model
with a Reservoir Simulator
The fracture length from the single well
model is used to determine the grid blocks
penetrated by the fracture
Fracture is considered to be infinite
conducting (high permeability)
The permeability field is
Y dy
reset in the reservoir
simulator
X
Our Approach
Phenomenological Decomposition
Reservoir Simulator
Server
Program
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
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
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
Injector
Injecting into Poorly Consolidated
Formations: Some Unique Challenges
Completion decisions are more complicated.
Injection water plugs off sand control devices
(gravel packs, screens).
Sudden changes in injection pressures can
cause sand failure.
Injectors fill up with sand if no sand control is
in place.
Fracturing is not easily detected and is hard
to model.
Fracture containment issues.
Injecting into Poorly Consolidated
Formations: Opportunities
Large solids storage capacity in diffuse
fractures.
Good candidates for waste injection (drill
solids, oilfield and refinery waste).
An excellent alternative for waste
disposal, if implemented properly.
σHmin
Conclusions
Subsurface injection of produced water is
becoming the disposal method of choice.
Better management of injection water can have
a large impact on oil & gas production
economics.
Water quality / treatment facility design
decisions are critical and must be carefully
made on a case by case basis.
Subsurface separation is thus far turning out to
be of limited applicability.
Sub-sea separation and injection presents
both tremendous opportunities and challenges.
Conclusions
In fractured injectors the injectivity decline
depends very little on water quality. Not so in
unfractured injectors.
The combination of fracture plugging, thermal
stresses, phase mobilities and heterogeneities can
give rise to complicated injectivity behavior.
Growing injection well fractures can have an
important effect on reservoir sweep.
Simulation tools should be used to aid in facilities
and completion design and in selecting injection
patterns to maximize oil recovery.
Co-Workers, Collaborators
Phani B. Gadde Lee Morganthaler
Mingjiao Yu Bill Landrum
Erik Wennberg Kris Bansal
Shutang Pang Nick Paris
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
Design water handling and injection systems to
reduce the cost of water injection.
– Specify injection water quality, rates & pressures
– Subsurface separation?
– Subsea vs topsides
The single well model can be used to address
these challenges.
Opportunities
Significant improvements in oil recovery.
Cost reductions to improve production
economics.
A Real Opportunity
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
Tabasco
Coca Cola Flonase
Milk Sauce
$79 $615,240
$150 $2660