Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

Use of Simple Mathematical Models for

Predicting Reservoir Behavior


J. G. Richardson, SPE-AIME,Esso Production ResearchCo.
R. J. Blackwell, SPE-AIME,Esso Production ResearchCo.

Introduction
Forecasting the behavior of a reservoir is one of the volving unsteady-state flow of fluids. Later, progress
more important but complicated tasks of engineers was made by Welge7 in solving onedirnensional dis-
in the oil industry. Knowledge of reserves remaining placement equations more easily. The advent of digital
in a reservoir is vital to planning optimum depletion computers led to the development of methods of
of a field. Unfortunately, the engineer assigned the solving problems of greater and greater complexity.
task of predicting reserves often faces a CM%CLA ~ndi~ating the progress being made with computers,
choice. For the most accurate answer, he can use a Douglas er al. in one papefl inciuded tiie ei?ect of
computer program that takes into account all of the capillary pressure in one-dimensional flow, and in
pertinent factors, but this approach is usually expen- another papere dealt with the flow of two phases in
sive and time consuming, and requires a detailed two dimensions. The utility of computers in predict-
knowledge of the reservoir. On the other hand, he ing reservoir behavior has continued to grow as pro-
can use conventional one-dimensional displacement grams have become more user-oriented and as com-
calculations that are easily applied but that in some puters have become faster and more economical to
cases do not adequately describe the reservoir flow employ. But even today, the time, effort, and money
system. The purpose of this paper is to describe a required to use computers to solve reservoir prob-
middle-ground approach that in special situations has lems cannot always be justified. Thus, other tools are
many of the advantages of the above methods with- needed.
. .
out their more seriom ---- ~rnwbacks, This approach An excellent example of another approach is given
SJS:S~.ath~matical models that describe the principal in a paper by Jos!in. 10 ~~ ~nalvzin~ a gas injection
flow mechanisms and can be quickly appiied by hand project in a large Venezuelan re&vo;r, Joslin realized
calculations. that gas had overridden the entire oil sand became
..~ A~~V d-. predicting reservoir behavior
The Icv,,nv.wb, production was above the critical rate. However, the
has grown steadily since the ‘pioneering work of pre=nce ~f pan~~ke-like shale members penetrated
Muskat’ and of Buckley’ and Leverett.’, 3 Muskat’s by the wells prevented coning of gas into perforations
tank-type or zero-dimensional method of predicting located below the shale near the base of the sand. Oil
behavior in dissolved gas drive reservoirs has been recovery was predicted by assuming that gas displaced
invaluable to the industry. Another milestone was oil vertically downward throughout the producing
reached with the Buckley -Leverett method of pre- area. Another paper demonstrating the practical use
dicting linear displacement of oil by water or gas when of simple mathematical models is that of Matthews
flow was principally along the bedding plane. The and Lefkovitsll for predicting producing rates for
classic work of Hurst,4 Muskat.5 and van Everdingen wells in depletion-type reservoirs.
and Hurst6 laid a firm foundation for problems in- We shall describe here technology that can be used

~.HeTe is an approach
.. .. jor solving reservoir flow problems where behavior is dominated
.*
i by a rate-lzmztlng step, Simple mo~en are d zvelope~J I-,
{nr uravitY drainage where vertical
~.
f70w occurs, jor water unfierrunning cj viscous oils, jor gravity segregation of water
, banks in gas caps, and jor control of coning by injection oj oil.
( I
----l#QC’? 7Q71 d7r- 1145
to solve several other types of reservoir problems. Second, oil drains vertically downward through the
Our purpose is not to write an exhaustive treatise on gas-invaded region, joining the main oil column by
each of the subjects covered, but to show an approach flowing along the bottom of the interval.
to solving reservoir flow problems.
The Mathematical Model
Use of Simple Mathematical Models for A ve~ simple mathematical model accurately de-
pre~,c~lfig p=e~er~oir &havior ~cfibes ~he ~isplacement of oil by gas drive and
Understanding the basic mechanisms that govern flow gravity drainage when the rate is less than one-half
of oil, water, and gas in any given reservoir situation the critical rate. The first calculation determines the
is necessary in developing reliable methods of pre- gas saturation just above the gas-oil contact, using
dicting behavior in that reservoir. Four kinds of the Welge procedure to solve the fractional flow
forces — viscous, gravitational, and capillary or diffu- equation.
sional — can be involved in the dkplacement of oil
by water, gas, or solvent from a three-dimensional
~OiCW ItRd!U~.. Thus, analysis of a displacement
process in a particular reservoir can become quite
complex if each of these forces and flow ht each
..
mmension are- :—---+ -+ 12firt11ma~e!y,~tudies of some
IIIIIJUI L~lL. s”1 . ●

situations indicate that one force is dominant and


that only one dimension is involved in the rate- Ffl = fraction of flowing stream that is gas
limiting step. In these circumstances, solutions can
@ = total flow rate, cu ft/D.
be direct and simple. In the following sections we
shall describe several types of such solutions. This saturation is found by plotting F, vs S, and find-
A necessary step before applying these models to ing the tangent to the curve passing through the origin.
a particular reservoir is to study its past behavior. For ease of calculation, the gas-oil contact is assumed
If reservoir conditions agree with the simplifying to move at a constant rate.
assumptions used in developing the model, then the The next calculation determines the quantity of
model can be used to try to match past behavior. If oil that drains from the region invaded by gas in a
past reservoir behavior can be matched, the model given time. For ease of calculation, this region is
can then be used in predicting future behavior. divided into arbitrary lengths and the amount of oil
produced by vertical gravity drainage is calculated
Gravity Segregation for the average time since passage of the gas front.
Physical Description of the Problem For vertical drainage of oil, the rate is given by
In steeply dipping reservoirs containing sands with Darcy’s law, with the driving force arising from the
high vertical permeabilities, gravity drainage of the density difference between gas and oil. We have
oil can be much more effective than one would cal- assumed, as did Cardwell and Parsons,19 that resist-
culate if he assumed that all flow must be parallel ance to flow of gas and capillary effects is negligible.
to the bedding planes. When sutlicient vertical perme-
– 0.044 k. ~p
ability exists, gravity drainage by flow of oil vertically u~ = 9 ..,-.. (3)
downward through the sand can be quite rapid. If /&7

the dip is great enough, oil that drains through the in which
thickness will flow in a thin layer along the bottom
‘-.--..1 +~ +h. h~ce nf the ~eservok as shown
d ‘he ~lllG1 Val LU .1!- “--w -. . . .
U. = oil fiow rate, cu ft/D
in Fig. 1. Thus, the displacement process occurs in k. = effective permeability to oil, darcies;
two steps. First, gas invades the sand and the main
gas-oil contact moves downdip. The tilt angle of the
front can be predicted using Dietz’s method,” if the
rate is less than the critical rate given by
0.044 k Ap Sill a
(9/~)criti.al =
(1)
_. PO —PO ‘“ “ “

k or k gr

in which
4 = total flow rate through area A, cu ft/D
A = area of cross-section normal to bedding
plane, sq ft
k = perrneabllity, darcies
Ap = density difference, lb/cu ft
p. viscosity of oil, cp
=

l% viscosity of gas, cp
=
k = relative permeability to oil, fraction
k; = relative permeability to gas, fraction
a = angle of dip, degrees Fig. l—Mechanics of gravity drainage.
,,AJC JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
and from continuity data can be correlated by the dimensionless parameter,
/& hP

o
UT
dz 1 du. ,..
—— . . . . . . which is derived by dividing the time re-
(4) k,, Ap ~ ‘
X6. = + dS. quired for vertical drainage,
in which h.
r,=—
z = vertical distance, ft k, Ap
t = time, days P@
= porosity, fraction
by the time required for flow along the bedding plane,
:= oil saturation, fraction.
The rate of movement of a particular oil saturation, t+

()
“dz
~ , , can be determined by plotting UOcalculated
k, is the permeability in the vertical direction and h,,
fr~rn Eq. 3 vs saturation, taking slopes to determine is the thickness in the vertical direction.
duJdSo and dividing by porosity, as indicated in Eq.
4. The amount of oil drained from each region during Example Problem
the time since passage of the front can be calcu- The utility of this simple model can be illustrated by
lated by graphical integration of a plot of height vs predicting recovery by gas drive and gravity drain-
saturation. age for an actual resewoir.
As a first approximation, the time for oil to flow
downdlp in the thin layer along the base of the Given: Average reservoir properties as presented in
formation can be neglected, as can the volume of Tables 1 and 2.
..-, . ~mt p-?e ~~ceeds
od m ttus layer. H the displacer%... Solution: Using Eq. 1 and the average reservoir prop
one-half the critical rate, oil tends to accumulate erties given in Tables 1 and 2, the critical ra’= foi
rather than flow away along the bottom of the inter- Hawkins is calculated to be 0.173 cu ft/D-sq ft. Since
val. More accurate calculations also require consid- the average actual rate of 0.036 cu ft/D-sq ft is only
eration of the thickness of the transition zone arising 21 percent of the critical rate, the simplified model
fr~m capillary effects above this layer of oil, especially should apply. Using Eq. 2, the average gas saturation
if the sands are less than 10 ft thick. just above L5e ga~.ei! c~ntac~ is found to be 45 per-
Recoveries calculated by. .thl~
:. + - m;fi1- nre
te-hl.+- --- quite cent by the Welge procedure, and the actual rate of
sensitive to the values of relative permeabdity to oil frontal movement is found to be
at very low oil saturations. Conventional laboratory
data can be extended to low oil saturations by plot- (0.0365)(365) = ~06ft,yr
Uac ~“~ I

ting measured values of effective permeability to oil ‘+= (0.279)(0.45)


so _ &* Time to gas breakthrough = 3,500/106 = 33 ye=
on log-log paper vs * in which SO.*
– S,ni– S..* ‘ Recovery at breakthrough may now be estimated by
is the irreducible oil satu~ation in the presence of dividing the reservoir into seven blocks 500 ft long
connate water. and 49 ft thick. The average vertical distance a given
If a measured value of S.,” is not available, a value saturation drains in each block can be calculated from
is chosen to yield a straight line through the data so Eqs. 3 and 4 knowing the time interval since passage
– SO,* n of the gas front. The residual oil left in each block
ko, =
( ‘0
1 – S.,* – Swi ) ‘
is determined by graphical integration of a piot of
So vs height. Results of these calculations are shown
in Table 3.
The slope
.. of the line, n, should be approximately 4
..
according to the meory of Ckiie .,y =, A 14 ~lu~ may be
-+ =..,
.-.,.-7 tm
w rewr.’, .----uac hretifirough is 0,92 – 0.076
as large as 6. The value of S..* should be nearly zero. 0.92
Eqs. 3 and 4 can be solved analytically. Recovery (loo) = 91.5 percent of the oil originally ‘in place.

TABLE l—AVERAGE RESERVOIR PROPERTIES


FOR THE HAWKINS FIELD TABLE 2-REIATIVE PERMEABILITY-SATURATION
Average permeability, darcies 3.40 REUTION FOR THE HAWKINS FIELD
Average vertical permeability, darcies 2.38 Relative Relatwe
Average porosity 0.279 ---
Gas Permeability Pe~oe;ility
Average initial water saturation, percent 8 Saturation to Ga.1s
(percent) (dareies) (darcies)
Angle of dip, degrees 6
Average thickness (in vertical direction), ft 49 c).10 0.018 0.49
Average length (along bedding planes), ft 3,500 0.20 0.054 0.28
Average reservoir pressure, psi 1,500 0.30 0.105 0.15
Average vkmsity of Oi!r Cp 4.45 0.40 0.184 0.07
n
“e-901 . 0.027
Average viscosity of gas, Cp 0.0185 O.m
Average density of oil, lb/cu ft 51.7 0.60 0.420 0.0076
Average density of gas, lb/cu ft 5.35 0.70 0.60 0.0015
Average total flow rate per unit area, 0s0 0.78 0.00019
cu ft/sq ft.D 0.0365 0.90 0.97 0.000017
1147
TABLE 3-AVERAGE SATURATIONS BEHIND GAS FRONT permeable sands, low-viscosity oil, and displacement
Residual Oil at rates much less than the critical rate, recovery pre-
Orainage Time Gas Breakthrough
Block
~um&~
Dis/f;Ee
Dsys Yesrs (psrcent)
dicted by the two-dimensional models is much greater
——
30.6 m than that observed in the field. ‘G Permeabilities in
1 0 tD 500 11,180
9,460 25.9 5.5 the vertical direction at Friendswooci are apparently
2 500 to lrooo
3 1,000 to 1,500 7,740 21.2 6.0 very limited. So, as a practical matter, the simple
4 1,500 to 2,000 6,020 16.5 6.7 model should be used in predicting reservoir be-
5 2,000 to 2.500 4,300 11.8 7.5 havior only when it can be shown to match past
6 2,500 to 3,000 2,580 7.07 9.0 behavior. When more complex models are needed,
7 3,000 to 3,500 860 2.36 13.5 those proposed in the literature should be studied
Average 7.6 for applicability.’’-”
Although the simple mathematical model can also
apply to some water drive reservoirs, the utility of
Comparisons with Field Data
this approach is restricted for several reasons. (1) The
Additional calculations were made using the model mobility ratio is favorable in many water drive reser-
for ranges of rates, vertical permeabilities, and sand voirs, and viscous forces can be quite efficient in the
thicknesses. The results are correlated in Fig. 2, which initial displacement phase. Thus, little mobile oil is
is a plot of recovery at gas breakthrough vs the dimen- left to drain by gravity. (2) Segregation rates are less
sionless parameter uT P, h,/kr Ap L. The recovery of than in gas-invaded areas since the density difference
87 percent observed in the Hawkins field” is shown between water and oil is less. (3) In reservoirs con-
for comparison in Fig. 2. This recovery was obtained taining viscous oils, practical dkplacement rates
by dividing the oil produced from the gas-invaded usually exceed the critical rate and this first model
area of the field by the volume of oil originally in does not apply. Another type of model, described
place in that area calculated from oil isopachous below, may apply in the latter case.
=-A.
maps. 1he 4.s percent recowly m ~r.- . .. by the
Airted

simple model is in excellent agreement with the 87 W-ater Lhxierrunning


percent value observed in the field. Physical Description of the Problem
Another check was made of the validity of the When water displaces viscous oils. conditions are
simple model by comparing results with calculations seldom favorable for uniform contacting of the sand
made with a two-dimensional, two-phase reservoir by water. Production rates, because of the demands
simulator using alternating direction implicit pro- of economics, must usually exceed critical rates,
cedure (ADIP). Although slightly different values of making it impossible for gravitational forces to main-
relative permeability to oil at low saturation were tain a stable displacement front. The mobility ratio
used in the simulator calculations, the value of 87.2 is slightly unfavorable in these reservoirs and water
percent recovery at breakthrough for conditions used tends to channel and bypass oil. Since water is more
in the computer solution coincides with the curve dense than oil, it seeks the bottom of the interval and
P!Qtted through results of the simple model. Inde- channels or “tongues” under the oil. The phenomenon
pendent calculations show that the slightiy different has ‘been discussed @ a number of authors9 and
relative permeability values used should make less ElkinsZ’ published a case history describing the
than 1 percent difference in recovery, so the agree- process in the Fosterton field.
ment of the computer results with the curve suggests When water arrives in the region under a producing
that both are essentially correct solutions. well, it tends to cone up into the well, if vexlical
By contrast, the recoveries observed in the field permeability exists, and be produced with the oil as
and predicted by models that permit flOW in WO shown in Fig. 3. Production histories in such reser-
dimensions are more than 15 percent greater than voirs are characterized @ early breakthrough of
those calculated by conventional one-dimensional water into all of the producing wells, followed by an
techniques.’ These differences arise because vertical extended penod of gradually increasing water-oil
drainage through the sand thickness is not accounted ratios. Study of the fluid mechanics involved in these
for in the conventional one-dimensional calculation
methods. which assume that flow occurs only along
the bedding plane.
Summarizing, this study has shown that a simple,
gravity drainage model can be readily app!ied tO PR-
dlct recoveries by gas drive and gravity drainage when
there exist certain conditions: flow rates are less than
one-half the critical rate and permeabilities in the
.. ---- I+ h qecllltq
verucai ciire~uuzi ~it? ..x&. . -.-. + obtiined
. with the
>5 I
~-&_ei Me in good agreement with recoveries observed I
{H 20 I oGRAVITYOSAINAGEMOOEL
AU~WK&JSFl~ RECOVERY
in the Hawkins field and also agree with solutions : ❑ 2-O,2.PNASE
COMFUISRCALCULATION
1
obtained using the two-dimensional, two-phase reser- a ,
o ,:.3
~-b ,..5 ,.-4
voir simulator. By contrast, attempts to use two-
dimensional models to match past reservoir behavior
in gas-invaded areas of Friendswood field were un- Fig, 2—Recoveries predicted using gravity drainage model
.
successful. Although ~~.~~.wfind
~ , ,W.lu=.-- _ thick, highly
-has compared with field and computer results.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUK1TECHNOLOGY
xdx dx
cases reveals that the dominant displacement force q,. df = k lC. ro P(I
—— .-
arises from the viscous pressure gradients exerted on L+(l – Stri – .$Or) 2ko It,, 1 – -l’ 2
the oil by water flowing in the layer under the oil. . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
For practical purposes, the time required for mobile
oil to rise by gravity from the water layer can be con- Integrating Eq. 8, we obtain
sidered instantaneous compared with the time re-
quired for it to flow through the oil layer along the
bedding planes to the producing wells.
The Mathematical Model = k “’”Po[- x–ln(l-x) ]--$-,
2k. P,.
Consider a cross-section of sand containing viscous
oil as shown in Fig. 4. Assume that water underruns . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
the oil because it is more dense than oil, and assume in which W,, is the total water production in dk-
that the water layer is of constant thickness. At a placeable pore volumes. Water influx is found by
patiicular time, the fraction of the total thickness w,. = w,, + x. Cumulative oil recovery, Nj,, in dis-
occupied by water is x and the fraction occupied by placeable pore volumes is equal to x. After break-
oil is 1 – x. 0]1 and water flow horizontally with through, the instantaneous produced water-oil ratio is
the viscous pressure generated by the invading water. given by
It is assumed that as oil is produced, the water layer
1
moves’ vertically upward with no resistance. The
average oil flow rate along the length is one-half the
oil production rate since no oil enters the inflow face
qtr
—=
q.
k....

2ko }1,,
ILO

() x
m–z”””
(10)

and the average water flow is the rate of water pro-


duction plus one-half the rate of oil production. If we Example Solution
assume that both water and oil fiow horizontally The ~!i!ity of this model may be shown by matching
through unit width, we obtain behavior observed in an actual field where the dis-
placement process is the underrunning of oil by water.

Given:
SW, = 0.11
and s 0.20
or =

p.50 Cp
=

APO= ()%
k~(l–
~.L
x)’”””””’
(6)
k
w = 0.4 Cp
k. = 1.0 darcy
0.25 darcy
=
w, To

in which k,,.,. is the effective permea~llitY to W’ater Substituting the above data into Eq. 9 provides the
at residual oil saturation. following
Produced oil is replaced by water moving vertically
upward, so
we =
(5o) (0.25) ~_ ~ –ln(l– x)]+ *
(2) (0.4) (1)
q. =+ L$(l – SW, –s.,). . . . (7) = – 15.7 in (1 – x) – 15.2X.

By assuming that the pressure drop is the same A table may now be prepared relating x, the fraction
through the oil and water layers, equating (5) to (6). of the thickness invaded (or recovery in percent of
solving for qo, eliminating qo with Eq. 7 and group- displaceable oil), to water influx and produced water-
ing variables, we obtain oii ratio (Table 4).

ZONE

wmn
... .” mmn
.. . . . . . m!
. . ..
WATERZW

q02

~.
WATERLAYSU q W2
v

Fig. 3-Mechanics of water underrunning and coning. Fig. 4-Model for water underrunning.

.Fn-rr R#nrl? 1071 1149


TABLE &PREDICTED BEHAVIOR WITH WATER ().()44 k Ap sin a
UNDERRUNNING (9/~)crit*c.l = 9.. (11)
u.
++— - u.
Oil Recovery
(displaceable Weter Influx ~lcr ~gr
volume or (displaceable Water Cut
fraction swept) volumes) Water-Oil Ratio (percent)
where A is the total cross-sectional area of the gas
0.1 0.13 ~.~g ~~e~ ---- A+ ,.,,k the +~ca] will fill the entire
~a~. ‘_i L k“ n--
~~t~, Water
. ..- --- -
0.2 0.45 3.42 77.4
1.04 6.22
sand thickness. Also, its areal distribution around
0.3 86.1
0.4 1.92 10.00 90.9
each injection well will approach a circular shape.
Q.5 3.26 15.00 93.7 (At very low rates, the water will underrun the gas
0.6 5.28 23.00 95.8
and sag dowdiP into a tear-drop shape because of
gravitational forces.) Solution of the second problem
requires knowledge of how much time would be re-
The model predicts that water breakthrough wiii quired for .wa~er to flow by grav@ to the oil zone
have occurred in all wells when 5 percent of the dis- after water injection ceases. The problem is one of
placeable oil is produced and that water cuts will predicting the countercurrent flow of water downdip
exceed 90 percent before 40 percent of the displace- and gas updip under the influence of gravity.
able oil is produced.
The Mathematical Model
Comparisons with Field Data After injection ceases, water tends to underrun the
Results obtained by the above calculations are com- gas as shown in Fig. 6. A simpie mathematical model
pared in Fig. 5 with recoveries and water cuts ob- can be derived by assuming that the thicknesses
served in the field as functions of water influx. Note through which the gas and water flow are constant.
that the field data are closely matched by the curves In the upper part of the thickness, which contains a
derived by the simple mathematical model. Calcula- reduced water saturation, gas is displaced updip by
tions were also made of conditions existing in the water flowing downward at the same rate by gravity
Hawkins field,” Recovery at water breakthrough was through a region of immobile residual gas saturation.
predicted to be 40 percent, which compares well with By assuming that capillary forces are negligibly small
a value of 42 percent calculated by dividing the oil and by applying Darcy’s law for each phase and
production by the volume originally in place in the equating the flow rates, the following equation can
water-invaded regions. Thus, it is concluded that this be derived.
model can be used to predict future production char-
. . . .. . 0.044 k LP sin ff
actenstlcs m mese wvo cmm>. 1A. 1. :. a,av
IL IS -lc- ,.nmpl IA d that
~ul.w,~-e- ...-. a,./A = . . . (12)
. ..”... .. r.._ Usecl in deriving the model apply,
“., ”.W.accllmntio~S
.,~ht=r~
p.,,,
it may have utility in predicting behavior in other k<:; , + k,,,(l – A J
reservoirs if it can be demonstrated that it will match If the area occupied by gas is such that q,t/A is a
past history. While this model predicts that water will maximum, then
channel and bypass oil, it assumes complete areal
coverage. In reservoirs containing areal heterogenei- A, = ~~w
. ., .- _.-: (13)
ties, only part or me rescrvulr iii~ii may ..r ha“- enptacted
-w ..-... - l+~w’ .”””..”
by water, and adjustments or conformance factors
will be needed to match reservoir behavior with the where M is the mobility ratio defined by
model. ~ = —
kJwc
. . . . . . . .. (14)
Gravity Segregation of Water kw/w,
Injected into a Gas Cap Eq. 22 can be used to predict the rate of move-
Physical Description of the Problem ment of tie water bank downdip once injection ceases.
One method of accelerating recovery of gas from This information. along with knowledge of the posi-
reservoirs where the gas cap and oil zone are asso- tion of the water bank when injection ceased, permits
ciated is to inject wqter near the crest of the structure. us to determine whether or not water will reach the
Although reservoir pressure can be maintained by oil zone before it is depleted.
replacing oil and gas-cap gas with water, the danger
Example Problem
exists that water will flow down into the oil zone and
cause counterblow of oil into the gas cap, The prob- To illustrate the use of this model, consider the fol-
lem is then twofold. First, how can the water be con- lowing problem.
centrated near the crest of the structure? Second, how Given:
much water can be injected without endaiigeririg the
oil coiwnn’1 L= 5,000 ft (distance from crest to gas-oii
The first problem can be dealt with directly. Water contact)
injection wells should obviously be located high on H= 20 ft
the structure parallel to the crest. Optimum spacing w= 5,000 ft
would be approximately that where the bubbles of k= 0.1 darcy
water growing around each injection well join just as += 0.20
injection ceases. The rate of water injection should s,.; = 25 percent
be greater than twice the critical rate given by S,u = 20 percent
., =,-l JOURN.Al_OF PETROLEUKf TFCHNOLOG}”
k,.,.,, = 0.50 treatment in 1935, numerotis rnu.l.o-.-tk AC have been
k,, = 1.0 proposed for reducing production of unwanted gas
p.lo
0.35 Cp
= (or water) that cones into wells. For example, wells
/Jg = 0.015 Cp are usually completed as low in the oil zone as pos-
a = 6° sible, or even in the water zone, in efforts to reduce
pt.
6Q.4 ]b/cu ft
= gas coning. In other cases, wells are shut in tem-
~, = 12.0 lb/cu ft porarily to allow cones to “heal”. Ka~ et al.” dis-
cussed a different approach in which impermeable,
And water is injected at the crest until the water horizontal barriers are placed (preferably just above
front has moved one-half the distance toward the oil the production perforations) to reduce coning. In this
column. paper. we shall discuss injection of oil into the gas
To find: cones to form a liquid barrier. This method, although
of limited practica! va!ue in most reservoirs, may have
The time required for water to flow by gravity through application in a few reservoirs containing thick, per-
the remaining 2,500 ft to the gas-oil contact. meable sands.
Solution: Physically, a liquid barrier can be generated as
shown in Fig. 8. The well is dually completed so
~ -_ ~0.5/0.35 = (3.0214
1.0/0.013
\/O.0214
A~ = _ = 0.128
1 + VO.0214
(0.044) (0.1) (o. 1045) (50.4)
“A = o 015/1 X 0.128 -r 0.35/0.5 X 0.872

= 0.02519 ft/D.
The time for water to advance the remaining 2,500
f~is

= (0.20) (2,500)(1 – 0.2 – 0.25) (0872)


:y=ikd!ii’
o! I
,
1
ODSERVEDWATER CUT
t t
4 20
I
3

o 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.:


0.02519 w, - DISPIACEAELEPORE VOLUMES
= 9,519 days, or 26.1 years. F@ Comparison of predicted and actual
reservoir bebatibr.
Comparisons with Experimental Data
The validity of this mathematical model was checked
by comparisons with data from a sarid-jmcked model
scaled to the condition shown in Fig. 7. Water was

1
TOTAL i
injected updip at about three times the critical rate AREA
until the front had advanced one-half the length of =A
the model. Injection was stopped and the position of
the water bank was recorded at various times as it
segregated downdip. The scaled time required for
water to reach the outflow end was 79 years, which
compares well with a value of 60 years calculated by Fig. &Model for gravity segregation of water.
the mathematical model. The clifferences between
calculated and observed results are in the direction AS lNJ~N CEASES
one would predict because unscaled capillary forces 1
,n tie ~xper;m,enta] mode! would maintain too high
GAS AND 16.5’
a water saturation in the gas flow path and restrict %!#l?ER
— CONNATEWATER
b \ —
movement of gas updip. We conclude that the time o —
for segregation in a reservoir would be more closely (
approximated by results from the mathematical K = o.1 DAR~
model.
Control of Coning
Physical Description of the Problem
When gas exists in sands above the oil producing 16.5’
interval of a well, the pressure drawdown associated
with production of oil causes the gas-oil contact to !jOoo’
o~
“cone” down into the producing interval. Since
Muskat and Wyckoff’” presented their analytical Fig. 7—Shapes of water-gas fronts.

1151
that a liquid such as stock-tank oil can be injected injection rates, q,, many times the net oil production
down the annulus thr:u~h perforations in the casing rate. From a practical viewpoint. the size of the bar-
into the gas cone. The inJected oil flows into the reser- rier will usually be limited either by the distance
voir as shown and drains down. filling the cone to between perforations or by the rate at which liquid
foml a liquid barrier. This barrier impedes flow of is injected to form the barrier. Within the above con-
gas into the productive interval and permits produc- straints, it is frequently possible to approximate the
tion of more oil from the reservoir for a given volume performance of a fluid barrier by assuming that it is
~f ~a~. This !iquid barrier increases the effective well- a fixed horizontal barrier having a radius equal to Ah
., -~-...= ●.lle
h The
bore radius and controls coning. much like a fixed ana located just duwvV ~wl..,----- ~n~rv~l.
rv=rfnratd

horizontal barrier discussed by Karp et ol. corresponding oil production reference rate is then
Muskat and Wyckoff’” gave the following equation calculated by substituting Ah of Fig. 8 into Eq. 15
for approximating the maximum rate at which a well in place of r,c:
can produce oil without coning. *

q. = 0.0246 ko Ap (h,’ – h,’) ,.. (15)


.

Production rates with and without fluid injection are


in which q,, is the oil production rate in barrels per then calculated using Eqs. 15 and 16.** The differ-
day, When a circular horizontal barrier is present, the ence between these two rates can then be used as a
radius of that barrier is substituted into Eq. 15 for r,. measure of the incremental production rate that
and the distance from the barrier to the bottom of would be possible with oil injection. This increase
the oil zone is substituted for Al,. (For anisotropic can rarely be achieved without coning some gas, but
sands, h,. can be replaced by h. ylkr.~kh.) the increased gas production should not be serious.
Conditions favorable for control of coning are (1)
Example Problem
thick. permeable sands containing low-viscosity oils
and (2) a barrier with as large a radius as possible. Given:

The Mathematical Model ko = 1 darcy


p. = 2.31 CP
Laboratory model studies and computer calculations #l. = 54.3 lb/cu ft
suggest that the benefits from a fluid barrier can be p,, = 5.73 lb/cu ft
approximated by a fixed horizontal barrier placed a h, = 32 ft
short distance above the perforations in the oil zone hp=8ft
and having a radius of the same order but slightly Ah = 32 ft
smaller than the fluid barrier. The radius of the fluid r. = 1,024 ft
barrier out to a radius greater than one or two times rw=lft
the distance between the injection and production
h..) wi]l usually require fluid
P3rfOfZikHiS (A.4 ~ h, – ..,,, Oil is injected into the upper perforations as shown
in Fig. 8.
●More accurate estimates of critical coning rates can be obtained
usxng the curves and procedures developed by Chancy ●t al.= In To find:
the current application, however, Muskat’s oldar equation ia more
cmvenient to uae since the effect of wallbore diameter is included
explicitly.
How much oil production rates can be increased
above the critical coning rate by injection of liquid.
Solution:
From Eq. 15, the limiting gas-free OHprcxhittiort rate
.L1 ..W’u,”-c
pcrssiule ..*hfis.* “q”...
Ii IIi A inipcti~ff
..-------- &

~0 = (0.0246)(1 .0) (54.3 – 5.7) (32’ – 82)


2.31 in ~
()
= 72.0 B/D.
By injecting oil, a liquid barrier having an effective
radius of about 32 ft can be formed. The correspond-
ing production rate is now calculated to be 144 B/D,
or twice the previous rate. Thus, the model predicts
that a production increase of 72 B/D should be pos-
sible with only a moderate increase in the net GOR,
although it is not possible, using this simple model
alone, to predict how much the GOR will increase.
*.lf desired, the more accurate method of Chanaj at sf.~ can be
kr~sA~ used for the case with no iniectjon and this critical rate can be
multiplied by the ratio On r./r_)/(ln r./Ah) tO obtain a closer esti-
Fig. 8-Modei for coning control by injection. mate for the raferanca rate with liquid injaction.

\ 1152 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY


benefits of fluid injection were demonstrated very
Comparisons with Computer Results strikingly. when the test was stopped about a Year
The above example shows how the simple model may later. In less than a month after injection was stopped,
be used to prdki whether !iquid injection is attrac- the producing GOR ciimbed d20Ve 30,000.”
tive. This model can be used as a tool to screen
prospective projects. An actual project could best be Conclusions
.-. 4-11.,find’
optlmlzed by experlmetkwy 1,,. m=u tbe
. injection rate It is concluded that reservoir flow problems can often
~“hat~ieid~ a ~inim-~m GOR for the desired produc- be analyzed readiiy by applying simple mathematical
?~~~rate. models if only one force and one dimension are iri-
,. km,, h fl@w
The simple model was checked by comparisons volved m the rate-hmltmg step, eveii tllv-g.. ..
with resuhs of computer calculations.:~ Computed occurs in three dimensions. It is further concluded
net GORS for the example problem are shown in that the mathematical models described in this paper
F& 9. With no injection. the GOR for a production can be used to predict reservoir behavior if reservoir
rate of 150 SlT3/”D is 780 cu f{/bbl (so!utlon gas was conditions agree with the simplifying assumptions
. . 1--; ~ tbe
458 cu ft/bbl). This is in reasonable agreement ~th used m develvPm6 .. - model
... . and if past behavior
the wa!ue of about 120 B/D obtained using the cor- can be matched. For these special situations, the fol-
relations of Chancy et al.,:n”but rougil~~ twice the rates lowing conclusions can be reached.
predicted in this case by using Eq. 15. Above 150 1. More than 80 percent of ti!e oil in place can
STB/D, the GOR increases rapidly. At a production be recovered from reservoirs produced by gas drive
rate of 300 B/D, the ratio has increased to 13,630 when conditions are ideal for gravity drainage of oil
cu ft/bbl. By injecting oil at a rate of 150 B/D, a vertically downward.
liquid barrier is formed and the ratio is reduced to 2. Early water production and long histories of
9,800 cu ft/bbl. When the injection rate is increased rising water production from reservoirs containing
to 600 B/D, the ratio drops to 6,200; but if the in- viscous oils can be matched and predicted using
jection rate is increased to 800 B/D, the net GOR mathematical models that assume underrunning of
also increases substantially because the higher injec- water.
tion rates tend to block influx of oil as well as gas. 3. Gravity segregation rates of water injected into
Thus. an optimum injection rate exists for any given gas sands can be estimated adequately using simple
net Oii pro~uc~on ~~tie. This optimum depends upon calculation procedures.
the stage of depletion and the ratio of vertical perme- 4. Caicu!ations can be made using a simple pro-
ability to horizontal permeability, as well as upon cedu re to determine if liquid injected into a we!! can
local reservoir heterogeneities. reduce coning.
Obvious questions then are: “Can a si.mific~t im-
provement be made in the performance of an actual Nomenclature
well that has clifferent sand- and oil-zone thickness, A = cross-sectional area normal to flow
viscosity, a different horizontal -to-vefiical permea- h = thickness
bility ratio? “ “What is the optimum injection rate?” k = permeability
Although the capability exists for computing the bene- L = length
fits of liquid barriers on well performance and the N = volume of oil
optimum rates for different reservoir situations, these P = pressure
predictions are only as good as the input data, and 9 = flow rate
frequently the reservoir description is woefully in-
adequate. Although much of the needed data could
be obtained from the well by measuring GORS for 251 i 1 I 1 1 I
various oil production rates, it appears that a some-
what better approach would be to first screen candi-
dates using the simple model and then determine the z
< 20 -
optimum injection rate by field experiments. % INJECTION
E RATES
Comparisons with Field Data
A test of fluid injection techniques to control gas ; 15 - n 150 bbl/day
coning was conducted in a field in southwest Texas. G A 600 bbl/day
In the test well, the GOR had risen steadily over a ~ 0
o 800 bbl/day
period of 6 years to more than 13,000 cu ft/bbl and 4 10 “
the daily net oil production rates had declined from 6
more than 60 to less than 7 B/D. For this case, the
.. ..:..1 m~ei predicted a higher lfiit-
simple marnerndilual ,lS
ing rate of 16 B/D and a potential increase of about 5“
10 B/D by injection of oil to create a liquid barrier.
In the test itseif, it was fomtd that an initial net oil
production rate of about 25 B/D with a net GOR o~ L I I A
of about 3,000 could be realized by injetting between o 100 200 300 400 500
70 and 80 bbl of stock-tank oil per day. Subsequently, NET OIL PRODLKTiON RATE - bb!/day
the net GOR increased slowly to above 4,000. The Fig. 9—Application of liquid injection to control gas coning.
—-- .--= ,n-1, 1153
S = saturation II. ~a~~~e%, c S. and Lefkovits, H. C.: “Gravity Drain-
age Performance .f Depletion-Type Reserweirs in the
t = time Stripper Stage”, Trans., AJME (1956) 207, 265-274.
= flow rate per unit of area 12. Dictz. D. N.: “A Theoretical Approach to the Problem
& volume of water of Encroaching and By-PassingEdge Water”, Proc. Ken.
Neder. A dad. Wetenshaffen ( 1953) series B-56, 83.
x = fraction of the thickness
13. Cardwell, W. T., Jr., and Parsons, R. L.: “Gravity Drain-
z = vertical distance moved by a saturation age Theory”, Tram., AIME ( 1949) 179, 199-215.
a = angle of dip 14. Corey, A. T., Rathjens, C. H., Henderson, J. H. and
P = viscosity Wyllie, M. R. J.: “Three-Phase Relative Permeability”,
= density Trans.. AIME (1956) 207, 349-351.
15. King, ‘R. L., Stiles, J. H., ”Jr., and Waggoner, J. M.: “A
$ = porosity Reservoir Study of the Hawkins Woodbute Field”, paper
SPE 2972 presented at SPE 45th Annual Fall Meeting,
Subscripts Houston, Oct. 4-7, 1970.
e = influx (or “effective” in coning) 16. BlirEE&jrEnquist, B. R., Jr., Good, L. W., and Wal-
“ “A Reservoir Study of the Friendswood
s = gas Fie~d”; J. “#et.”>ech. (June, 1971) 685-694.
H = horizontal 17. Shreve, D. R, and Welch, L. W., Jr.: “Gas Drive and
1“ = initial or injection Gravity Drainage Analysis for pressure Maintenance
Operations”, Trans., AIME (1956) 207, 136-143.
0 = oil 18. Martin, John C.: “Reservoir Analysis for Rcasurc
P = production Maintenance Operations Based on Complete Segregation
r = relative or residual of Mobile Fluids”, Trans., AIME ( 1958) 213, 220-227.
T = total 19. Cook, R. E.: “Analysis of Gravity Segregation Perform-
ance During Natural Depletion”, &c. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept.,
v = vertical 1962) 261-274.
20. Hall, H. N.: “Predicting Gravity Drainage Performance
References Using a Three-Dimensional Model”, J. Per. Tech. (May.
1. Muskat. M.: Physical Principlesof oil Production Mc- 1968) 517-524.
Graw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York (1949). z 1, Terwil]igcr, p. L., Wilsey, L. E., Hall, H. N., Bridges,
2. Leverett, M. C.: “Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids”, P. M. and Morse, R. A.: “Experimental and Theoreticrd
?~~n~., -----
AINf~ ( 1941) 142, 152-169.
Investigation of Gravity Drainage Performance”, Trans.,
AIME (. 1951). 19Z 285-296.
3. Buckley, S. E. and Leverett, M. C.: “MechanismOi Fhsi6 22. Elkins, L. F.: “F~sieit~fi Fie!d — -AmUnusual probl?m
Displacemertt in Sands”, Trans., AIME ( 1942) 146, 107-
of Bottom Water Coning and Volumetric Water Invasion
----
116.
Etljciency”, Trans., AIME ( 1959) 216, 130-137.
4. Hurst, W.: “Unsteady Flow of Fluids in 011 Reservoirs”, 23. Muskat, M. and Wyckoff, R. D.: “An Approximate
Physics (Jan., 1934). Theory of Water Coning in Oil Production”, Trans.,
5. Muskat, M.: “The Flow of Compressible Fluids through AIME (1935) 114, 144-163.
Porous Media and Some Problems in Heat Conduction”, 24. Karp, J. C., Lowe, D. K. and Maruaov, N.: “Horizontal
Physics (March, 1934). Barriers for Controlling Water Coning”, Trans., A3ME
6. van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.: “The Application ( 1962) 22S, 783-790.
of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Res- 25. Chancy, P.’ E., Noble, M. D., Henson, W. L. and Ri%
ervoirs”, Trans., AIME ( 1949) 186, 305-324. J. D.: “How to Perforate Your Well to Prevent Water
7. Welge, H. J.: “A Simplified Method for Computing Oil and Gas Coning”’, Oil and Gas J. (May 7, 1956) 55, 108.
R..~r;8by Gas or Water Drive”, Trans., AIME (1952) 26. Nolen, J. S. and Berry, D. W.: “A Study of the Reli-
-.
ability of a Semi-Implicit Reservoir Simulator”, paper
8. Do;glas, J., Jr., Blair, P. M. and Wagner, R. J.: “Calcu- SPE 2981 presented at SPE 45th Annual Fall Meeting,
lation of Linear Walerilood Behavior Including the Effects Houston, Oct. 4-7, 1970. XPT
of Capillary Pressure”, Trans., AIME ( 1958) 213,96-102.
9. Douglas, J., Jr.. Peaceman. D. W. and Rachford, H. H., Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
Jr.: “A Method for Calculating Multi-Dimensional Im- office Aug. 7, 1970. Revised manuscri~t recaived June 29, 1971.
miscible Displacement”, Truns., AIME ( 1959) 21Q 297- Paper (SPE 2928) was presanted at SPE 45th Annual Fall Meating,
308. held in Houston, Oct. 4-7, 1970. ~ Copyright 1971 American lnsti-
tue of Mining, Metallu~ical, ●nd petroleum Enginaare, Inc.
10. Joslin, W. J.: “Applying the Frontal Advance Equation
to Vertical Segregation Reservoirs”, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan., This paper will be printed in Traneectione volume 251, which
1964) 87-94. will cover 1971.

..C4
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Вам также может понравиться