Feasibility Studies of Waterflooding Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
- J.D. Matthews (U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, Winfrith) | R.I. Hawes (U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, Winfrith) | I.R. Hawkyard (U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, Winfrith) | T.P. Fishlock (U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, Winfrith)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Journal of Petroleum Technology
- Publication Date
- August 1988
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 1,049 - 1,056
- 1988. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 5.2.1 Phase Behavior and PVT Measurements, 5.2 Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, 5.1.1 Exploration, Development, Structural Geology, 4.1.9 Tanks and storage systems, 2.2.2 Perforating, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 4.6 Natural Gas, 5.7.2 Recovery Factors, 1.2.3 Rock properties, 3.3 Well & Reservoir Surveillance and Monitoring, 5.8.8 Gas-condensate reservoirs, 5.4.2 Gas Injection Methods, 5.3.4 Reduction of Residual Oil Saturation, 5.4.1 Waterflooding, 1.6.9 Coring, Fishing, 6.5.2 Water use, produced water discharge and disposal
- 3 in the last 30 days
- 626 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
Preliminary results obtained from a program of experimental and theoretical studies examining the uncertainties of waterflooding gas-condensate reservoirs are reported. In spite of high trapped-gas saturations (35 to 39%), further aggravated by an unusual type of hysteresis, recoveries of gas and liquids can be increased over those obtained under natural depletion.
Water injection has been suggested as a method of maintaining pressure in gas-condensate reservoirs. This method offers advantages over gas injection: gas can be sold from the start of reservoir production; the injection costs are much lower; the favorable mobility ratio ensures a high sweep efficiency; and the reservoir pressure is maintained without changing the composition, and hence the dewpoint pressure, of the gas. Water injection has not been generally accepted for gas-condensate reservoirs, however, because of the following concerns.
1. The advancing water could trap a significant amount of gas.
2. It may not be possible to remobilize the previously trapped gas during a subsequent depressurization.
3. Three-phase relative permeabilities for conditions where retrograde condensation occurs are virtually unknown and may be unfavorable.
4. Well lift could be a severe problem if there are high water cuts before and during blowdown.
The first three of these factors are concerned with the flow behavior within the reservoir and are addressed in this paper. Well lift is not considered for reasons explained below.
In a pioneer work, Geffen et al. showed that trapped-gas saturations following waterflood are in the same range as the residual oil saturations expected in waterflooded oil reservoirs: i.e., 15 to 50% of pore space, depending on the rock characteristics. They argued that these high values of trapped-gas saturation could substantially reduce the recovery of gas from such reservoirs as a result of their magnitude and permanence.
A large number of gas reservoirs with strong underlying aquifers have been successfully developed, however, and have given moderately high gas recoveries, suggesting that at least some of the trapped gas could be remobilized during a final period of accelerated depressurization. Boyd et al. were able to depressurize the Double Bayou field after it had watered out and thus remobilize some of the residual gas. Four years after the start of the trial, they estimated that an increase in recovery of 10% of the gas initially in place (GIIP) could ultimately be recovered. Of this 10% increase, about 8% was a result of percolation of trapped gas from the watered-out zone. Brinkman found that accelerated depressurization in the Lovells Lake Frio 1 field increased the recovery from 58 to 70 % GIIP. Of the 12 % increase, nearly 10 % was caused by the trapped gas percolating from the watered-out zones. Lutes et al. obtained 8% GIIP from percolation during accelerated depressurization in the Katy field but had expected 20%. They concluded that recovery was restricted by the amount of gas that could percolate out of the waterflooded zones by high pressures arising from percolate out of the waterflooded zones by high pressures arising from unfavorable relative permeabilities.
|File Size||642 KB||Number of Pages||8|