Eagle Ford Huff ‘n’ Puff Gas-Injection Pilot: Comparison of Reservoir-Simulation, Material Balance, and Real Performance of the Pilot Well
- Daniel Orozco (University of Calgary) | Alfonso Fragoso (University of Calgary) | Karthik Selvan (Nexen Energy) | Graham Noble (CNOOC International) | Roberto Aguilera (University of Calgary)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- February 2020
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 247 - 260
- 2020.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- reservoir simulation, Eagle Ford Shale, material balance, huff-and-puff gas injection pilot, containment
- 14 in the last 30 days
- 268 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
In this study we compare real data from an Eagle Ford Shale huff ‘n’ puff (H&P) gas-injection pilot with reservoir simulation and tank material-balance calculations. The comparison is good and supports the conclusion that oil recovery from the Eagle Ford (and likely other shales) can be increased significantly using H&P.
For H&P to work, the injected gas and the in-situ oil in the shale must be contained vertically and laterally following hydraulic fracturing. Containment is critical for the success of H&P. Containment implies that the injected gas flows into the hydraulic fractures, penetrates the tight matrix, and does not escape or leak outside the target stimulated reservoir volume (SRV). Vertical and lateral containment exists in the Eagle Ford as demonstrated previously (Ramirez and Aguilera 2016) with an upside-down distribution of fluids: Natural gas is at the bottom of the structure, condensate in the middle, and oil at the top. Two different matching and forecasting approaches are used in this study: reservoir simulation and tank-material-balance calculations.
The results show a good history match of primary recovery and secondary recovery by H&P in the pilot well. The history match is good in the case of both reservoir simulation and tank material-balance calculations. Once a match is obtained, the simulation and material balance are used to forecast secondary recovery over a period of 10 years with sustained H&P injection of dry gas. The results indicate that dry-gas H&P can increase oil recovery from the Eagle Ford Shale significantly. Under favorable conditions, oil recovery can be doubled and even tripled over time compared with the primary recovery. The addition of heavier ends to the H&P gas injection can increase oil recovery even more, putting it on par with recoveries in conventional reservoirs. The benefit of H&P occurs in the case of both immiscible and miscible gas injection. The H&P benefits can likely be also obtained in other shale reservoirs with upside-down containment of dry gas, condensate, and oil.
The novelty of this work is the combined use of reservoir simulation and tank material-balance calculations to match the performance of an H&P gas-injection pilot in the Eagle Ford Shale of Texas. We conclude that oil recoveries can be increased significantly by H&P.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||14|
Chapra, S. and Canale, R. 2009. Numerical Methods for Engineers with Personal Computer Applications, fifth edition. New York, New York, USA: McGraw Hill.
Computer Modelling Group. 2017. Winprop User Guide, Version 2017. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: CMG.
Egboga, N. U., Mohantym K. K., and Balhoff, M. T. 2017. A Feasibility Study of Thermal Stimulation in Unconventional Shale Reservoirs. J Pet Sci Eng 154: 576–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.10.041.
Fragoso, A. 2016. Improving Recovery of Liquids from Shales Through Gas Injection. MSc thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Fragoso, A., Selvan, K., and Aguilera, R. 2018a. Breaking a Paradigm: Can Oil Recovery from Shales Be Larger Than Oil Recovery from Conventional Reservoirs? The Answer Is Yes! Paper presented at the SPE Canada Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 13–14 March 2018. SPE-189784-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/189784-MS.
Fragoso, A., Trick, M., Harding, T. et al. 2018b. Coupling of Wellbore and Surface Facilities Models with Reservoir Simulation To Optimize Recovery of Liquids from Shale Reservoirs. SPE Res Eval & Eng 21 (4): 1058–1082. SPE-185079-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/185079-PA.
Fragoso, A., Wang, Y., Jing, G. et al. 2015. Improving Recovery of Liquids from Shales Through Gas Recycling and Dry Gas Injection. Paper presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Quito, Ecuador, 18–20 November. SPE-177278-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/177278-MS.
Gamadi, T. D., Elldakli, D., and Sheng J. J. 2014a. Compositional Simulation Evaluation of EOR Potential in Shale Oil Reservoirs by Cyclic Natural Gas Injection. Paper presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, 25–27 August. URTEC-1922690-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2014-1922690.
Gamadi, T. D, Sheng, J. J., Soliman, M. Y. et al. 2014b. An Experimental Study of Cyclic CO2 Injection To Improve Shale Oil Recovery. Paper presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 12–16 April. SPE-169142-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/169142-MS.
Hoffman, T. and Evans, J. 2016. Improved Oil Recovery IOR Pilot Projects in the Bakken Formation. Paper presented at the SPE Low Perm Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA, 5–6 May. SPE-180270-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/180270-MS.
Honarpour, M., Nagarajan, N., Orangi, A. et al. 2012. Characterization of Critical Fluid, Rock and Rock Fluid Properties—Impact on Reservoir Performance of Liquid-Rich Shales. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8–10 October. SPE-158042-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/158042-MS.
Kovscek, A., Tang, G., and Vega, B. 2008. Experimental Investigation of Oil Recovery from Siliceous Shale by CO2. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, 21–24 September. SPE-115679-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/115679-MS.
Li, L. and Sheng, J. 2017. Numerical Analysis of Cyclic CH4 Injection in Liquid-Rich Shale Reservoirs Based on the Experiments Using Different-Diameter Shale Cores and Crude Oil. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 39: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.01.017.
Nghiem, L. X., Li, Y.-K., and Heidemann, R. A. 1985. Application of the Tangent Plane Criterion to Saturation Pressure and Temperature Computations. Fluid Phase Equilib 21 (1–2): 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3812(85)90059-7.
Orozco, D., Aguilera, R., and Selvan, K. 2018. Material Balance Forecast of Huff-and-Puff Gas Injection in Multiporosity Shale Oil Reservoirs. Paper presented at the SPE Canada Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 13–14 March. SPE-189783-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/189783-MS.
Piedrahita, J., Lopez Jimenez, B., and Aguilera, R. 2018. Generalized Methodology for Estimating Stress-Dependent Properties in a Tight Gas Reservoir and Extension to Drill-Cuttings Data. SPE Res Eval & Eng 22 (1): 173–189. SPE-189972-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/189972-PA.
Ramirez, J. and Aguilera, R. 2016. Factors Controlling Fluid Migration and Distribution in the Eagle Ford Shale. SPE Res Eval & Eng 19 (3): 403–414. SPE-171626-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/171626-PA.
Rassenfoss, S. 2017. Stressed About Production? Consider a Chemical Cocktail. J Pet Technol 69 (12): 32–34.
Schmidt, M. and Sekar, B. 2014. Innovative Unconventional2 EOR-A Light EOR an Unconventional Tertiary Recovery Approach to an Unconventional Bakken Reservoir in Southeast Saskatchewan. Paper presented at the 21st World Petroleum Congress, Moscow, Russia, 15–19 June. WPC-21-1921.
Song, C. and Yang, D. 2013. Performance Evaluation of CO2 Huff-n-Puff Processes in Tight Oil Formations. Paper presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference–Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 5–7 November. SPE-167217-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/167217-MS.
Wan, T., Meng, X., Sheng, J. et al. 2014. Compositional Modeling of EOR Process in Stimulated Shale Oil Reservoirs by Cyclic Gas Injection. Paper presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 12–16 April. SPE-169069-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/169069-MS.