V2 Objectives

Investigative Methods for the
Optimization of Natural Gas and Gas

Condensate
UNIVERSITY OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
PROJECT THESIS
PRJT 6008
Phillipe Madray
53130
17/01/2019
1|Page
Contents
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... 4
Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 8
Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Gas Condensates.................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.1 Rich Condensates versus Lean Condensates .............................................................................. 13

2.1.2 Condensate Banking ................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Mahogany Field.................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.1 Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 18

2.2.2 Contour Map .............................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.3 Wells and Completion Data ........................................................................................................ 21
2.2.4 Core Data and Log Data .............................................................................................................. 22
2.2.5 Petro-physical Data ................................................................................................................ 23
2.2.6 PVT Data ..................................................................................................................................... 24
2.2.6 Production Data ...................................................................................................................... 25
2.3 Aquifers................................................................................................................................ 26
Gas Injection ......................................................................................................................... 27
Horizontal vs Vertical Wells .............................................................................................. 30
Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen Removal Process Description ...................................................... 31
Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) ....................................................................................... 32
Multiple exposures .............................................................................................................................. 32

Environmental concerns...................................................................................................................... 32
2|Page
Laws..................................................................................................................................................... 33
Environmental hazards ........................................................................................................................ 33
Noise Pollution .................................................................................................................................... 33
Vibration .............................................................................................................................................. 34
Fire hazards ......................................................................................................................................... 34
Explosion hazards ................................................................................................................................ 34
Erosion................................................................................................................................................. 34
Corrosion and Prevention Methods .................................................................................................... 35
Economics.................................................................................................................................. 40
Production Based Taxes ...................................................................................................................... 40

Royalty ................................................................................................................................................. 40
Supplemental Petroleum Tax .............................................................................................................. 40
Production Levy ................................................................................................................................... 41
Green Fund Levy.................................................................................................................................. 41
Petroleum Profit Tax............................................................................................................................ 41
Unemployment Levy ........................................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 3: Theory ...................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 4: Methodology ............................................................................................................. 50
Chapter 5: Results and Discussion ............................................................................................. 59
Chapter 6: Learning, Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................... 61
References .................................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 65
Aquifer Models .................................................................................................................................. 65

Aquifer Type ...................................................................................................................................... 68
Permeability Case ............................................................................................................................ 69
Porosity Cases .................................................................................................................................. 71
Pressure exponent Cases............................................................................................................... 72
Horizontal Test Models .................................................................................................................... 74
3|Page
Acknowledgement
I would like to show my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. David Alexander, Dr. Mohammad
Soroush and Mr. Neal Alleyne for all their guidance, help and support during the entirety of this
project. Furthermore, I would like to thank all friends and family members who made this all
possible throughout this endeavor and thank God for endurance and strength which was
needed in difficult moments. Also, I would like to thank Mr. Elroi Felix for helping me in brain
storm ideas and locating papers for my research.
4|Page
Objectives
The objectives of this study will be:
1. Collect data on the following for the reservoir we are investigating if available:
i. Digitized contour and fault files for Net Oil Sand and structure maps and net sand maps.
ii. Geological description of the formations which can be encountered.
iii. Production data; oil, water and gas production.
iv. Completion Data.
v. Core Report.
vi. PVT report.
vii. Well Data.
2. To consider efficient reservoir management geared towards maximizing recoverable

hydrocarbon reserves by investigating the best method for optimization which will include,
water alternating gas (WAG), injection of gases and recycling such as Carbon Dioxide,
Methane and Nitrogen.
3. To evaluate the impact of aquifer support on condensate recovery.
4. To evaluate HSE impacts and mitigation measures.
5. Economic analysis to evaluate economic feasibility for key scenarios in the project.
Research on the above will be done and using both numerical and analytical calculation in some
cases, we plan to properly present the best possible method to produce gas condensates while
observing proper safety precaution.
5|Page
Executive Summary
Within this project several methods focused on optimization and production of both
natural gas and gas condensates were tested using computer generated simulations and the
results analyzed for the best recovery along with economic considerations achieved. A model of
an individual sand in the Mahogany Field was constructed and history matched with the data
available from published papers and records. Three injector fluids were tested Nitrogen, Carbon
Dioxide and Methane these test were done using two methods continuous injection and water
alternating gas injection. These methods were selected for their ability to re-pressurize the
reservoir, vaporize condensates and displace the hydrocarbon fluid. We investigated the each
injector fluid and their impact on the reservoir as a whole such as the volume of condensates
and natural gas recovered, the volume of injection fluid required obtain high recovery, forming a
closed loop system and how we would separate injected fluid from the hydrocarbon product to
be re-injected.
Carbon dioxide and nitrogen are impurities and a standard rating of two percent is the
highest allowable concentration for natural gas to be acknowledge as pipeline gas quality
therefore separation of these impurities are important to providing a high quality product. The
concentration of methane is not of any significance, however the volume of gas being produced
and injected is important since injecting a higher amount of methane than being produced
reduces profitability on gas sales of which condensate production may not provide a sustainable
pay back for the injection project. This would be based on the composition of the reservoir fluid
whether or not the fluid being produced is lean or rich in condensates. The solution, membrane
technology using a membrane that only allow specific components of the gas stream to
permeate through the material such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen we can remove a large
volume of these impurities from our gas stream.
The membranes placed within separators in a two-step separation method to allow the
gas to be stripped of carbon dioxide and nitrogen at the well site and be sent directly to nearby
injectors and the hydrocarbon product to be transported to the refinery. The membrane is
effective at concentrations lower than 40% moles of the gas being removed therefore the project
wouldn’t be possible at high concentrations of injected fluid. This can be avoided in some of the
injection cases by stopping injection into the reservoir two months before the concentration is
anticipated to occur and the concentration has been noticed to drop however due to the aquifer
in the field the concentration would increase since due the pressure drop increasing since the
6|Page
injection wells that were previously re-pressurizing the sand have stopped adding the pressure
support. Water encroachment pushes the flood front to the producers at a faster rate in some
cases.
The comparison of continuous injection versus water alternating gas (WAG) injection
has shown great value since the break through time in all the case of WAG injection is
significantly lower compared to the continuous injection cases. Also, it was note that the
recovery for WAG is much higher since it has greater sweep efficiency and the ability to delay
the gas slug behind; there is also an economic benefit since the water injected in the WAG
process is cheaper to inject. It is to be noted also in the WAG process nitrogen yields the
greatest recovery for natural gas and methane yields the highest recovery for gas condensates.
Each fluid has their individual strengths the nitrogen is able to displace a higher volume of
natural gas and the time taken to reach the max concentration of 40% moles is much lower
compared to carbon dioxide. Methane has the ability to vaporize and produce the gas
condensates effectively, its ability is quite low to recover natural gas since we are effectively
taking sales gas that could be used for profit and re-injecting back into the reservoir.
These results show that the most effective method of injection points towards WAG in a
gas condensate reservoir. This idea is believed by some as an ineffective method of improving
recovery since the water traps the gas within the reservoir. However the gas slug helps aid in
the sweep efficiency of the reservoir. It also provides an economical benefit since water the slug
is cheaper to fund than a continuous injection of any of the three injection gases. Another
implication the project has is the use and implementation of horizontal wells and how they
impact the production of gas condensates it was notice that the implementation of horizontal
wells showed no advantage over a vertical well in the case of a high permeability reservoir. This
theory is further proven by the recoveries shown in Ali-Nandalal & Gunter (2003, January 1)
paper on the Mahogany field.
Research into the aquifer support on the field is further supported by the author José
Alejandro Cruz Lopez, (2000) who noted when a reservoir lacks active aquifer the recoveries
are very low for condensates ranging from 20 to 30%. I notice that the larger the aquifer and its
volume generated higher recovery for the gas condensates which he mentioned to be 50% with
stronger aquifer support.
7|Page
Chapter 1: Introduction
Continuous developments in drilling and logging technologies have enabled deeper,
higher pressure, and higher temperature gas condensate reservoirs to be discovered and
developed. In addition, most gas condensate fields worldwide are at the stage of their life
approaching their dew-point pressure below which liquid condensate drop out occurs. Globally,
the increasing demand for natural gas liquids on world markets has stimulated interest in
optimizing gas condensate resources (BP 2014).
With this knowledge the location for this project is key for understanding the reasons for
developing these resources. Which brings us to the island of Trinidad and Tobago, the country
has been active in the oil and gas industry for a considerable length of time. Over hundred years
of production and exploration activity both on land and in shallow water, achieving cumulative
production over three (3) billion barrels of oil making it the largest contributor to the energy
industry in the Caribbean. Trinidad and Tobago’s hydrocarbon production has moved away from
being predominately oil to a natural gas based economy in the early 1990s (MEEI 2010).
According to Energy Information Agency (EIA, 2013) shows proven 3P natural gas reserves
were estimated to be around 25.24 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) with several reservoirs containing
condensates.
These proven reserves along with the success of Trinidad and Tobago in the energy
sector is due to the productive engineering advances that has been practiced over the years
making this country a great candidate for this project. Narrowing our scope to the Columbus
basin which is hosts a large quantity of the country’s major sources of gas along with
condensates and oil reservoirs located in several sands. One such field is the Mahogany field, it
was discovered in 1968 and appraisal drilling was completed in 1996. With the field containing
more than thirty (30) stacked sands, seventeen (17) of which are gas bearing and some of them
producing gas condensates in this field.
The field contains recoverable volumes of approximately 2.6 TCF of gas, 30 MMB of
condensates and 20 MMB of oil with the spotlight on the Mahogany Sand 20 being the focus for
this project making it a perfect choice to develop the basis for this project since the data was
readily available with some minor setbacks. Nandalal (2003) describes the field production
measuring at 475 MMscf/d and cumulative production of 714 Bscf since the paper has been
published. In the field the main driving force for most reservoirs are predominately edge or
8|Page
bottom water drives with near volumetric depletion initially being exhibited by only two
reservoirs. Investigations into the edge water drive in the Mahogany Sand 20 will be done and
the effects on the condensate recovery will be tested.
For this study a reservoir model will be built and several simulation models ran in a
reasonable timescale based on a gas condensate reservoir geared towards optimization and
recovery. This work focuses on operational decisions and reservoir management of gas
condensate fields. For a more comprehensive understanding of the options available for field
development, the following studies are to be considered and a comprehensive review of existing
literature will be done. Firstly, the behavior and characteristics of gas and gas condensates
during production over the life of a project and how it affects the overall recovery will be
discussed also the different methods to increase production by re-pressurization and minimizing
condensate banking will be explored. These methods include the investigation of gas injection
and gas cycling, which can be used to maintain reservoir pressure above the dew-point
pressure while producing.
This is necessary since producing condensates below the dew-point of a reservoir can
cause complications such as condensate banking and liquid drop-out that restrict flow and
reduce relative permeabilities of gas leaving behind valuable resources. The following gases
such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide and methane can be implemented to solve this issue and their
economic return based on the investment to set up injection projects. We will also be looking
into the impact of an aquifer drive and water encroachment for a gas condensate field, also
more detailed analysis of the implementation of horizontal wells compared to vertical wells. How
the different wells types will perform over a time at the same production rates.
9|Page
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Gas Condensates
Hydrocarbons are measured on a carbon number scale to reflect the number of carbon
atoms contained in each molecule, with lower numbers signifying lighter, gassier, and more
volatile carbon molecules. Condensates typically fall between C4 and C7+ they are a less
dense mixture of light liquid hydrocarbons and are very light with high API ratings. This can be
represented in Error! Reference source not found.showing the different hydrocarbons. They
are typically separated out of a natural gas stream at the point of production when the
temperature and pressure of the gas is dropped to atmospheric conditions. (Rory Johnston
2014)
Gas
Component Black Oil Volatile Oil Wet Gas Dry Gas
Condensates
C1 48.83 64.36 87.07 95.85 86.67
C2 2.75 7.52 4.39 2.64 7.77
C3 1.93 4.74 2.29 0.34 2.95
C4 1.6 4.12 1.74 0.52 1.73
C5 1.15 3.97 0.82 0.08 0.88
C6 1.59 3.38 0.6 0.12
C7+ 42.15 11.91 3.8 0.42
Mw C7+ 225 181 112 157
GOR 625 2000 18,200 105,000 -
API 34.3 50.1 60.8 54.7 -
Color Greenish Black Medium Orange Light Straw Water White -
Table 2. 1: Showing typical compositional components for dry gas, wet gas and gas condensate.
Source: https://slideplayer.com/slide/6342462/22/images/1/Three+%26+Multicomponent+Mixtures
Condensates are mostly composed of NGLs and naphtha range material, and typically
have an API from 45 to 70+. These NGLs have a higher value base with its heating values
measured in BTU at 3000 and above where as natural gas measures at 1000 BTU, and can
increase in value when separated as individual components. Once separated from natural gas,
condensates are generally treated like a crude oil. However, condensates can fetch a higher
price selling as Brent crude in the market which is valued higher than WTI due its quality and
chemical composition.
They are light in color with Gas Oil Ratios (GOR) ranging from 5,000 to 100,000 scf/stb and C7+
components making up less than 12.5%. Gas condensate reservoirs exhibit complex flow
10 | P a g e
behavior as a result of retrograde condensation when the bottom-hole flowing pressure (Pwf)
reaches the dewpoint pressure. Gas condensate dropout near the wellbore must be considered,
as changes in fluid saturation occur. It affects the final decisions made in the production
planning of a gas condensate field. We can observe this phenomenon in Figure 2. 1: Diagram
showing behavior of reservoir fluids using a pressure temperature graph.below where this type of reservoir
lies between the critical point and the cricondentherm in a single gaseous phase represented by
point B.
Figure 2. 1: Diagram showing behavior of reservoir fluids using a pressure temperature graph.
Source:http://www.appliedpetroleumreservoirengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/psn-terry-fig0104.jpg
As we produce the pressure decreases isothermally and reaches point B1 here the
pressure has reached the dewpoint this term is described as being the first formation of a liquid
droplet in the system. The pressure is further depleted as production continues and we are now
at point B2, this is where we can observe an increase in the liquid saturation around the
wellbore due to the pressure at this point there is a large percentage of liquid than the previous
point and we now have two phase flow occurring in this area.
11 | P a g e
Further pressure reduction shows a decrease in the liquid saturation percentage this is
at the point B3 this behavior is described as retrograde hence the name retrograde
condensates. The cost and risk to develop reservoirs under these extreme conditions highlights
the need to be able to predict the recovery of gas and liquids from these reservoirs. In particular,
there is a need to better understand the factors controlling the decline of well productivity due to
hydrocarbon liquid saturation developing in the near-wellbore region of the reservoir as the
flowing pressure declines below the dew point pressure. This behavior can be observed as the
reservoir in Figure 2. 2: Showing actual rate for a reservoir and simulated rate validating values shown. has
reached its dewpoint and we can observe a drastic decrease in production past the dewpoint
pressure not only represented by the actual data but for the simulated production rates that they
have conducted.
Figure 2. 2: Showing actual rate for a reservoir and simulated rate validating values shown.
Source:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10916466.2011.604063?src=recsys&journalCode=lpet20
Several factors, including initial productivity, amount of near wellbore liquid saturation
due to condensation, and relative permeability appear to influence the observed level of
productivity decline. For example reservoirs with natural gas or gas caps have reported no clear
signs of severe decline from a position of high productivity after reaching below the saturation
pressure perhaps because of the relatively low liquid content of the gas in most associated
reservoirs. (Curtis H. Whitson, Øivind Fevang, and Tao Yang, 1999)
12 | P a g e
2.1.1 Rich Condensates versus Lean Condensates
It is most important to note the difference between rich and lean gas condensates since
they are produced differently this can be seen in Figure 2. 3 and Figure 2. 4 since liquid saturation
is higher in the case for rich gas condensates and lower in the case for lean gas condensates.
As pressure decreases at reservoir temperature, a rich gas condensate forms a higher
percentage of liquid than a lean gas. The rich gas drops out more condensate than the lean gas
seen in Figure 4 the liquid dropout curve represents two phases in contact with one another.
However, in a reservoir, the liquid saturation in the near-well region builds up and eventually
condensate blockage can affect formations with both lean and rich gases, and the normalized
well productivity index (J/J0).
Figure 2. 3: Phase Diagram for a Rich Gas Condensate shows a high liquid saturation past the dew point.
Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/947f/0f6128844c3334638325ae38efe17bb802c7.pdf
Figure 2. 4: Phase Diagram for a Lean Gas Condensate shows a lower liquid saturation past the dew point.
Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/947f/0f6128844c3334638325ae38efe17bb802c7.pd
13 | P a g e
The amount of liquid phase present depends not only on the pressure and temperature,
but also on the composition of the fluid. Determining the fluid properties can be important in any
reservoir, but it plays a particularly vital role in gas-condensate reservoirs. For example,
condensate/gas ratio plays a major role in estimates for the sales potential of both gas and
liquid, which are needed to size surface processing facilities. The amount of liquid that may be
stranded in a field is also an essential economic consideration. These considerations and
others, such as the need for artificial lift and stimulation technologies, rely on accurate fluid
sampling. In Figure 2. 5 we can take note of the higher and early rate of liquid drop out occurring
as a rich gas condensate reservoir pressure is reduced after production and for the lean
condensate the point of liquid drop out is much later with a lower volume being produced. It
should be noted however within both reservoirs the productivity ratio is drastically lowered
Figure 2. 5: Showing the liquid dropout rate is higher for rich gas condensate than lean gas as pressure is reduced.
Figure 2. 6: Shows productivity varies as the productivity ratio increase.
14 | P a g e
2.1.2 Condensate Banking
Gas condensate reservoirs exhibit complex flow behavior below the dew point pressure,
caused by compositional changes and the creation and growth of a condensation banking
around the wellbore, which effectively reduces the relative permeability to gas flow. As a result,
gas production decreases as well as liquid condensates, valuable resources are left behind in
the reservoir. It was discovered that three concentric regions with different liquid saturations
emerge around a gas condensate well producing below the dewpoint pressure (Kniazeff and
Naville 1965). Away from the well, an outer region contains the initial liquid saturation. This is
the region farthest away from the well where reservoir pressure exceeds the dew-point pressure
of the original reservoir fluid.
Next, an intermediate region shows a rapid increase in liquid saturation and a

corresponding reduction in gas relative permeability. A region where reservoir pressure drops
below the dewpoint and condensate drops out in the reservoir. However, the accumulated
condensate saturation is not high enough for the liquid phase to flow. Liquid in this region is still
immobile because the critical saturation has not been reached yet. Nearer to the well, an inner
region forms where liquid saturation exceeds the critical saturation and both the reservoir gas
and liquid condensate flow into the well with constant composition. This is near-wellbore region
where both gas and liquid flow simultaneously and the reservoir pressure drops further below
the dew point, the critical condensate saturation is exceeded, and part of the condensate
buildup becomes mobile.
Figure 2. 7: Diagram showing the three regions of flow at the point of production near the wellbore.
Source: file:///C:/Users/plpetlab48.STUDENT/Downloads/7023-15360-1-PB%20(2).pdf
15 | P a g e
Gringarten et al. (2000) noted a fourth region in the immediate vicinity of the well with
low interfacial tension resulting from high flow rates yields lower liquid saturation and higher gas
relative permeability. The existence of this fourth region is important because it counters the
productivity loss caused by liquid dropout. This region is where the capillary number effect is
dominant over the inertial resistance effect, contributing to higher gas recovery. A gas
condensate reservoir can choke its most valuable component which is the condensate.
Condensate loss is therefore one of the major challenges in the gas condensate reservoirs. Gas
condensate reservoirs usually exhibit reduced well productivity because of condensate dropout
that occurs below the dew point pressure. Different methods have been proposed to mitigate
the condensate dropout and increase gas and condensate productivity. When the gas is very
lean, condensate blocking can even cause a large decline in well productivity.
Afidick et al. (1994) reported about 50% of productivity loss for a field which
contained a fluid with only about 1.1% of maximum liquid drop out. This was also verified by
numerical simulations. It was also reported that the liquid saturation in the near wellbore region
increases up to a 70%. This region of liquid buildup grows with time as the reservoir is depleted.
As the productivity impairment comes mainly from the loss of relative permeability to gas, there
have been many studies to measure and model how the condensate phase impedes the flow of
gas. Mott et al. (2000) studied the relative permeability to gas using a reservoir fluid to see the
effect of fluid composition and rock types. It was shown that the relative permeability increases
with increasing velocity at a fixed saturation. Kumar et al. (2006) also measured the relative
permeability to gas with synthetic fluid under realistic reservoir conditions, e.g. high temperature
and high flow rate including non-Darcy flow effect.
16 | P a g e
2.2 Mahogany Field
Ali-Nandalal & Gunter (2003, January 1) wrote about the Mahogany field and its
discovery in 1968 and appraisal drilling was completed in 1996. The field is located fifty (50)
miles offshore eastern Trinidad with two platforms situated in water depths of two hundred and
thirty (230) feet. The field contains more than thirty (30) stacked sand, seventeen (17) of which
are gas bearing. Production history indicates that water drives is the prevailing drive mechanism
with near volumetric depletion being exhibited by only two reservoirs. The Mahogany field was
discovered in 1968, but was not produced until 1998 when it started supplying gas to the first
Atlantic LNG project (Train I). The field contains seven faults blocks and (10) ten gas bearing
sands: 15, 17, 18, 18a, 19, 20, 23, 24, 24a and 25 with total gas reserves of 2.3 Tcf. Two major
pipelines transport the flow of hydrocarbons across the ocean and can be seen in Figure 2. 8,
these pipelines direct produced oil and gas towards Galeota and Atlantic LGN these pre-existing
pipeline systems would be integral for our injection project as captured CO2 and N2 could be
transported to the injection wells via either pipelines. The cost for setting up new pipelines to
transport injection fluids would be eliminated.
Figure 2. 8: Showing the location of the Mahogany Field off the coast of Trinidad and its two platforms Mahogany A
and B.
Source: https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-101/issue-13/drilling-production/fiber-optics-
profiles-real-time-temperature-across-horizontal-lateral.html
17 | P a g e
2.2.1 Geology
The field is located in the Columbus Basin within the Eastern Venezuelan Basin, its
structure consist of northeast to southwest trending anticline structures that is heavily faulted by
series of northwest to southeast normal faults which causes the area to be extensively
deformed this can be seen in Figure 2. 9 the system also encompasses numerous oil and gas
fields off the eastern coast of Trinidad. Exploration wells drilled across the field has proven the
existence of lateral extensive faulting with anticline structures composed of Pleistocene aged
sand and shales. It consists of several depositional cycles within an overall deltaic, shore face
environment. The Pleistocene delta front sands tend to thin towards the south east of the field.
Figure 2. 9: Geological map for the Columbus Basin.
Source: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0264817203001612-gr1.jpg
In Error! Reference source not found. we can see a cross section of the entire field
showing the area of study the well locations, fault system and reservoir locations. We can get an
idea of the thickness of our reservoir and the penetration wells. In a study published by Gibson
and Benthan (2003) provides a calibration for sand juxtaposition using shale gouge ratio (SGR).
A SGR<20% provide weak or no compartments, whereas SGR>20% creates possible
compartments that may break down by production and sand on shale juxtaposition create
strong compartments creating a seal. In their study they described the fault 100flt shown in
Error! Reference source not found. as being sealing this fault displaces both Fault Block 4
(FB4) and Fault Block 5 (FB5). This is further proven as both fault blocks initially had the same
gas water contact (GWC) and comparable reservoir pressure consistent with a fault with tips out
within the pay section. The GWC showed varied movement and locations in both fault blocks
proving that both fault blocks was not in communication.
18 | P a g e
Figure 2. 10: Showing a cross section for the Mahogany Field and its sand structure, faults and well paths.
Source: Ali-Nandalal, J., & Gunter, G. (2003, January 1). Characterising Reservoir Performance
for the Mahogany 20 Gas Sand Based on Petrophysical and Rock Typing Methods.
2.2.2 Contour Map
Ali-Nandalal & Gunter (2003) also provided a detailed top structure contour map with
depths, faults and well placement this can be observed in Figure 2. 11. We can now model the
sand using this structure contour map since there is no net oil sand map available. It should be
noted there is no scale or measurement for the y-axis and one producer MB-13 is missing.
Figure 2. 11: Contour Structure Map for Mahogany Sand 20.
19 | P a g e
Using Figure 2. 12 we can develop a scale for our contour map by adjusting the features of
the faults and using the scale provided. We can also note the cross section line that is depicted
in Figure 2. 10.
Figure 2. 12: Map used to scale our structure contour map.
Source: https://csegrecorder.com/articles/view/can-hydrocarbon-saturation-be-estimated-using-
density-contrast-parameter
Samsundar, K., Moosai, R. S., & Chung, R. A. (2007, January 1) also provided a map showing
the Mahogany sand 20 with the location of the missing well, using Error! Reference source
not found. we deduce the location and horizontal length of the well
Figure 2. 13: Diagram showing fault blocks and estimated locations from missing wells and actual production wells
highlighted in red
Source: Samsundar, K., Moosai, R. S., & Chung, R. A. (2007, January 1). Surveillance
Planning: The Key to Managing a Mature Gas Reservoir.
20 | P a g e
2.2.3 Wells and Completion Data
From Figure 2. 11 we can see several wells that are displayed in Error! Reference source
not found. below. It should be noted that not all wells listed are production wells for the sand 20
and simply penetrates the sand. We can also note the dates of completion and apply them to
history matching data.
Well Name Fault Block Depth Description

MA-4ST1 FB4 9594 Completed in Sand 20, Date: 06/26/1998
MA-12 FB4 ? Completed in Sand 21
MA-13 FB4 9564 Completed in Sand 21
MA-13P FB4 9568 Completed in Sand 21
MA-15B0 FB4 9674 Completed in Sand 21
MA-15B0 FB4 9667 Completed in Sand 21
MA-6ST1 FB4 9637 Completed in Sand 21
EM-5 FB4 9522 Exploration Well
MB-1 FB4 9629 Completed in Sand 23
MB-13 FB4 ? Completed in Sand 20, Date: 04/08/2003
MA-1 FB5 9348 Completed in Sand 20, Date: 05/07/2005
MA-8 FB5 9476 Completed in Sand 24a
EM-5XST2 FB5 9293 Exploration Well
MB-2 FB5 9470 Completed in Sand 20, Date: 03/28/1999
Table 2. 2 Showing wells that show up within the contour map.
Source:Ali-Nandalal, J., & Gunter, G. (2003, January 1). Characterising Reservoir Performance
for the Mahogany 20 Gas Sand Based on Petrophysical and Rock Typing Methods
The total amount of production wells in the sand 20 is as follows FB4 and FB5 are produced
respectfully from MA-4 and MB-13 and wells MA-1 and MB-2. Well MA-01 is completed as a
cased hole gravel pack whereas well MB-13 is completed using an open hole gravel pack its
lateral length is significantly larger than the reservoirs thickness and hole size drilled at 12 ¼’’
and casing 10 ¾’’. Well MA-4 was completed using HRWP along with MA-5 which is complete
in sand 19. Well MB-2 has been completed using a dual interval frac and pack along with MB-1
which is complete in sand 23.
21 | P a g e
2.2.4 Core Data and Log Data
The following data from a core sample taken from well MA-12 shown in Error!
Reference source not found. displays a 60ft core sample giving the following data estimated
from logs and calculations shown in Table 2. 3: Showing data gathered from well logs from well MA-12., and
Table 2. 4. Well MA-12 is missing from Figure 2. 10.
Figure 2. 14: Displaying well MA-12 logs that were used to determine information in Table 2.
Figure 2. 15: Showing another well log penetrating the sand.
22 | P a g e
Source: https://csegrecorder.com/articles/view/can-hydrocarbon-saturation-be-estimated-using-
density-contrast-parameter.
Core Data Value

Porosity 32%
Permeability 2400md
Core Length 60ft
Thickness (MA12 Well) 279ft
Cementation Exponent (m) 1.75
Saturation Exponent (n) 1.74
Table 2. 3: Showing data gathered from well logs from well MA-12.
Source:Ali-Nandalal, J., & Gunter, G. (2003, January 1). Characterising Reservoir Performance
From the data gathered so far we can have a general idea of the reservoir and its
structure from Figure 2. 12 we can further understand the shape of the reservoir as it relates to the
top of the structure and thickness where we can observe a the cross section of the reservoir
showing the sand has a uniform thickness within both fault blocks.
2.2.5 Petro-physical Data
In Error! Reference source not found.Table 2. 4 further information gathered from

different logs from other wells other than well MA-12 are shown below.
Petro-physical Property Values

Porosity Type Intergranular macro-porosity
Porosity Range 25% - 35%
Permeability Range 47mD - 2000mD
Average Water Saturation 20%
Shale Volume 5%
Net to Gross 0.77
Fracture Pressure 6,155 psi
Reservoir Pressure 4758psi @ 9758ft sstvd
Reservoir Temperature 172 degree F 9758ft sstvd
Gas Specific Gravity 0.59
Condensate API 47.9
Gas Viscosity 0.025
Gas Formation Volume Factor 1.0167
23 | P a g e
Table 2. 4: Shows petrophysical data for the Mahogany Sand 20 gathered from logs from wells in the sand.
2.2.6 PVT Data

There was no PVT data for the reservoir; however a paper by H. Raffie & D. Richard
(2014) showed several compositions for different gas condensate fields and are shown below.
Figure 2. 16: PVT data showing different composition for condensate reservoirs in Trinidad and Tobago.
Source:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263750362_A_Parametric_Methodology_in_T
uning_the_Peng-Robinson_PR_Equation_of_State_for_Gas_Condensate_Systems
Sample PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4 PL5 PL6

Mole % C7+ 3.924 2.753 2.919 2.268 2.122 1.616
Specific Gravity γ7+ 0.8031 0.8004 0.7939 0.7967 0.7918 0.7869
Molecular Wt. M7+ 160 157 150 153 148 143
Mole % C11+ 1.729 1.148 1.12 0.939 0.778 0.567
Molecular Wt. M11+ 221 222 213 211 211 203
Mole % C15+ 0.919 0.572 0.525 0.449 0.368 0.241
Molecular Wt. M15+ 270 278 266 261 263 254
Mole % C20+ 0.373 0.24 0.187 0.149 0.134 0.069
Molecular Wt. M20+ 326 345 332 321 320 315
Figure 2.17: PVT data for gas condensates samples in Trinidad and Tobago
24 | P a g e
Figure 2. 18: Constant Volume Depletion data for gas condensate samples
2.2.6 Production Data
In a paper by Samsundar, K., Moosai, R. S., & Chung, R. A. (2007) production data for
the field has been shown for gas and water production separately for both fault block as well as
pressure declines for each fault block.
25 | P a g e
Figure 2. 19: Showing Production data for gas and water production for both fault blocks
Source: Samsundar, K., Moosai, R. S., & Chung, R. A. (2007, January 1). Surveillance
Planning: The Key to Managing a Mature Gas Reservoir.
2.3 Aquifers
I. Roopa, Z. Khan, and K. Baksh (2015) published a paper on three different aquifers in
the Columbus Basin. The Sand 20 in the Mahogany Field is referred to as TQ5l sand in the
hydrocarbon bearing across two fault blocks. FB4 and FB5, having two production wells in each
fault block. These are MB-2 and MA-1 in FB5 and MA-4 and MB-13 in FB4. The TQ51 FB4
reservoir in the Mahogany field had an estimated gas water contact (GWC) at -9756ft tvdss. The
reservoir has an average gross thickness of 200 feet and can be subdivided into two main
parasequence sets, an upper wells developed blocky sand approximately 125 feet thick and a
lower 75 foot interval which is less developed (Error! Reference source not found.).
26 | P a g e
Figure 2. 20: Showing the location of the aquifer.
Source:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266665171_Understanding_Trinidad_Gas_Re
servoir_Performance_Mango_Mahogany_and_Immortelle_Field_Water_Drive_Reservoir_Anom
alies
José Alejandro Cruz Lopez, (2000) noted when a reservoir lacks active aquifer their
recovery are very low of the order of 20 to 30 % for condensates and between 70 to 80 % for
the gas. In reservoirs with active aquifers, their recovery factors are greater, of the order of 50%
in condensates and about 70% for gas; however, a severe water invasion exists in the
productive areas leaving about 40% of trapped hydrocarbons.
Gas Injection
Gas injection can come in many forms with different injection fluids either continuous or
water alternating being the two methods to be considered since the aim for this project is gear
towards pressure maintenance the huff and puff methods can be used for certain applications
however it is not as effective as continuous or WAG. Vladimir Alvarado and Eduardo Manrique
(2010) noted that hydrocarbon gas injection (continuous or WAG) continues to be the preferred
recovery process in offshore fields, gas condensate reservoirs, or fields in remote locations
without access to gas markets. Gas injection has for decades been used to enhance
hydrocarbon recovery. The injected gas keeps the reservoir pressure high and blends with the
27 | P a g e
reservoir fluid to possibly develop a miscible zone that will prevent gas from behind in
penetrating and creating a gas break through. The lowest pressure at which a miscible zone can
develop is called the minimum miscibility pressure or MMP. The MMP can be measured
experimentally by carrying out a slim tube test or it can be simulated using either a slim tube
simulator or a multi-component tie-line algorithm.
Gas injection as an enhanced recovery technique for gas condensate reservoirs is less
common and the theoretical framework is different from that of oil mixtures. The produced fluid
is a gas and gas breakthrough not an issue. If a gas condensate fluid is produced by natural
depletion, the condensate-gas ratio (CGR) will decrease with time from the point the saturation
pressure is reached. Most liquid components will be contained in the condensate that starts
forming at the saturation pressure and most of this condensate will stay back in the reservoir.
For a gas condensate fluid the purpose of the gas injection is pressure maintenance and re-
vaporization of already condensed liquid.
Three different injection gases were compared N2, CO2 and a hydrocarbon (HC) gas the
outcome of the project was presented at the ADIPEC conference in Abu Dhabi 2015 (Kumar et
al., 2015). Two key features of the injection gases were studied, re-vaporization and
displacement efficiency. Re-vaporization is the more important mechanism when the reservoir is
depleted. That means the reservoir pressure is below the saturation point when gas injection
starts and some liquid condensation has already taken place. If gas injection is started at a
pressure above the saturation point, the displacement efficiency becomes the more important.
The displacement efficiency is a measure of how much gas is produced per mole or weight unit
of gas injected.
Gas cycling processes to be considered it is requires reliable information of

thermodynamic properties and phase behavior of reservoir fluid and mixtures during the cycling
process. Injection of pure methane has little effect on dew point pressure and liquid drop-out for
reservoir fluid. Nitrogen addition substantially increased dew point and drop-out for reservoir
fluid. Methane injection resulted in higher changes in dew point pressure and liquid drop-out for
reservoir fluid than obtained for reservoir fluid. Addition of nitrogen to methane cycling gas did
not produce significantly different dew point pressure and liquid drop-out fix reservoir fluid. Pure
methane should be the injection fluid to be used for the gas cycling process.
28 | P a g e
The injection of CO2 vaporizes the liquid that has been trapped in gas condensate
reservoirs during the depletion process. This results in an increase in the pore space for storage
purposes as well as enhanced economics due to additional liquid recovery. The improvements
in liquid recovery will depend on purity of CO2. To compare the use of carbon dioxide for
enhanced liquid recovery in gas-condensate reservoirs, nitrogen and methane gases are used
to pressurize the reservoir to 4500 psia and during cycling. The first observation made is that all
the gases improved condensate recovery, 84% condensate recovery for methane, while
nitrogen achieved only 53% recovery. Secondly, CO; has a better liquid recovery that both
nitrogen and methane. This can be attributed to the phase behavior effects resulting in more
efficiently re-vaporization than the other 2 gases.
The amount of CO2 that can be stored in a reservoir is controlled by the constraint that
the pressure cannot exceed the initial reservoir pressure. In this case the reservoir had an initial
reservoir pressure of 4500psia. As it can be seen more CO2 can be stored in the
heterogeneous cases. That is because it takes longer for the reservoir to pressurize to 4500
psia allowing for more CO2 to be injected in the reservoir. It indicates that the CO2 is able to
migrate away from the injection well faster than the BC. So, the high permeable layer and streak
are able to provide a path for easy movement of injected CO; away from the injection well.
Based on these results, one can speculate that if the heterogeneities were barriers (low
permeability) as opposed to high permeability streaks or layers, they would have impeded the
flow of CO; away from the wellbore and thereby reduce the amount of CO2 that can be stored.
WAG recovers significantly more condensate with less injected gas than continuous gas
injection. Therefore, WAG could improve economics substantially by reducing compression
costs, releasing gas for sale, and recovering more liquids. Water is typically not injected into a
gas-condensate reservoir in conventional practice because of potential loss of reserves to
trapped gas saturation, water production, and lowered infectivity. The study by Kumar et al.,
2015 shows, however, that water primarily traps dry gas, not the desired gas condensate; water
production is very low; and gas infectivity is essentially restored after water injection with the
WAG process. Ultimate total dry-gas recovery after blowdown is larger after WAG because
more reservoir space is occupied by water. Factors affecting WAG injection include
heterogeneity, anisotropy, and stratification, wettability, fluid properties, miscibility conditions,
injection techniques, WAG parameters (e.g., ratio, slug size). According to simulations and
laboratory coreflood displacements, WAG improves gas-condensate recovery from stratified gas
condensate reservoirs compared with recovery with continuous gas injection. Improvement
29 | P a g e
ranged from 28 % to 54 % in the five simulation models investigated. The dominant factors
contributing to superior WAG performance are favorable water mobility relative to gas mobility,
gravity segregation, and relative permeability. WAG performance is sensitive to reservoir
layering, fluid properties, trapped gas saturation, and vertical permeability.
Horizontal vs Vertical Wells
Miller et al. (2003) show in their study that the drawdown pressure for a horizontal well is
much smaller than the drawdown pressure for a vertical well. Therefore, it will take a longer time
for the bottom-hole pressure in a horizontal well to reach dew point pressure compared to a
vertical well. Also, the study indicates that a horizontal well reduces condensate blockage near
the wellbore because the productivity index in the horizontal well almost remains the same after
the dew point pressure is reached. Even though using a horizontal well has been proven
effective for mitigating condensate blockage, it does not prevent condensate from forming near
the wellbore. Also, a horizontal well is more expensive than a comparable vertical well, so it is
essential to make a comparison between the benefit and cost.
30 | P a g e
Both horizontal wells and vertical well stimulation do improve well productivity, it
depends greatly on well and reservoir parameters such as horizontal well lengths, well
placement, reservoir permeabilities, and gas condensate compositions. For gas condensate
production below the dewpoint pressure, it is possible to achieve an optimum balance between
gas production rate and pressure drawdown, thus minimizing condensate dropout effect while
producing at a reasonable rate. In a low-permeability gas condensate reservoir, the six vertical
wells perform slightly better than the two horizontal wells for the same amount of gas
production. In a tight gas condensate reservoir, on the contrary, gas recovery with two
horizontal wells is significantly greater than with six vertical wells. Although, in this model, well
stimulation can increase the productivity of the vertical wells in tight gas condensate reservoir, it
is not as effective as using horizontal wells.
Y. H. Seah, A. C. Gringarten, M. A. Giddins and K. Burton (2014) Shows in their study

horizontal well length affects gas production in gas condensate fields. A longer horizontal well
can increase reservoir contact and enable operation at a higher bottomhole pressure, thus
reducing condensate dropout in fields operated below the dewpoint pressure. As the well
produces and liquids form in and around the wellbore liquid drop out occurs and affects the well
deliverability since the pressure tends to no longer be able to push liquids to surface and this
further blocks the pore spaces. However in the paper publish on the Mahogany sand 20 it
shows the implementation of a horizontal well will not increase the ultimate recover for the field.
Further work and test are to be done to investigate these claims.
Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen Removal Process Description

Carbon dioxide and nitrogen gas membranes operate on the principle of selective
permeation; each gas component has a specific permeation rate. The rate of permeation is
determined by the rate which a component dissolves into the membrane surface and the rate at
which it diffuses through the membrane. The components with higher permeation rates will
permeate faster through the membrane module than components with lower permeation rates.
For example, carbon dioxide is a faster, more permeable, gas than methane. When a stream
consisting of these two gases contacts the membrane, the carbon dioxide will permeate through
the fiber at a faster rate than the methane. Thus, the feed stream is separated into a methane-
rich (residual) stream on the exterior of the membrane fiber and a carbon dioxide/nitrogen rich
31 | P a g e
(permeate) stream on the interior of the membrane fiber. The primary driving force of the
separation is the differential partial pressure of the permeating component. Therefore, the
pressure difference between the feed gas and permeate gas and the concentration of the
permeating component determine the product purity and the amount of carbon dioxide
membrane surface required.
Figure 2. 21: Example of CO2 separation system at production wells.
Source: https://www.mtrinc.com/our-business/natural-gas/co2-removal-from-natural-gas/
CO2 content reduced to required specifications (<2 mol% or optimal levels):

 Feed Rate: < 1 MMscfd to > 300 MMscfd
 Feed CO2 Content: > 40 mol% to < 5 mol%
 Product CO2 Content: to < 2 mol%
 Hydrocarbon Recovery: > 95% +
Health, Safety and Environment (HSE)

Most of the common HSE hazards identified in the energy industry are present in
offshore environment (HSC, 1996). A plethora of hazards on offshore rigs include chemical
hazards (toxics, corrosives, irritants and possible carcinogens); physical hazards (noise,
vibration, various forms of radiation and thermal extremes); biological hazards (legionella, food
poisoning); ergonomic hazards (manual labor, workstations and confine spaces); and
psychosocial hazards associated with work (extended work hours, tour patterns, work
relationships, etc.) or the location (travelling long distances, being away from home and loved
ones, living on the job, etc.), all of which can contribute to psychological stress. The
International Labor Office (ILO, 1978, 1980) has more than 20 years of several reports
mentioning the various chemical hazards such as carbon dioxide, methane, crude, various mud
32 | P a g e
components, welding/cutting fumes, acids, coatings. Along with physical hazards, biological
hazards, psychosocial hazards and psychological stress.
Multiple exposures
Offshore work can involve high degree of exposure to a range of hazards sequentially or
simultaneously (e.g. hazardous substances, noise, vibration, hot or cold conditions, heavy
manual handling activity are all present on the drill floor). An example of this combination; leaks
and confined spaces which can create a situation for loss of life, high or low exposures to
chemicals during long periods of time can create medical issues after time. Potential
interactions between different stressors have hardly been explored and the effects on the
human body.
Environmental concerns
Introduction of hazardous substances offshore into marine environments can be

damaging in various and bring up serious concerns with local wildlife populations. The
implementation of more environmentally friendly materials have been consistently implemented
over several years, the use of materials that are potentially more hazardous have been
discontinued in the energy sector.
Laws
Laws of Trinidad and Tobago for controlling pollution are extensive and have been
update throughout the history of the oil and gas industry. These laws are applied and fines are
imposed on companies that do not follow the rules. Laws and guidelines regulated and enforced
by the Environment Management of Trinidad and Tobago under the EMA act (2000) which
include:
1. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT THE AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS, 2014 1.
2. The Environmental Management Act, 2000 THE NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL RULES,
2000.
3. The Environmental Management Act, 2000 THE WATER POLLUTION RULES, 2001,
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT THE WATER POLLUTION (AMENDMENT)
REGULATIONS, 2006
33 | P a g e
Environmental hazards
During the injection and production of a hydrocarbon reservoir several dangerous and
toxic gases/chemicals may be possibly used in these processes. The injection of carbon dioxide
and the production of methane other hydrocarbon components are incredibly damaging to the
environment and local marine/aquatic wildlife. A fair amount of normal producer gas installations
work under suction, so that even if a minor leak in the installation occurs, no dangerous gases
will escape from the equipment during actual operation. The situation is different however during
starting-up and closing down of the installation. During starting-up the gas is generally vented,
and it is necessary to ensure that the gases produced cannot be trapped in an enclosed room.
Noise Pollution
There are two important potential health problems arising from exposure to noise
offshore: noise-induced hearing loss and the potential for sleep disturbance with resultant
fatigue and stress. HMSO Code of Practice for reducing the exposure of employed persons to
noise was used with a recommended maximum level of 88dB(A) for general work areas on
offshore installations based on a daily 12h shift. Department of Energy/HSE design guidance
recommended area-based limits for specific areas on installations, e.g. 70 dB(A) in workshops
and 45 dB(A) in sleeping areas. However, although virtually all companies have purchasing
policies covering noise, these are not always well used. For instance, a company may see the
purchase of a piece of noise-suppressed equipment as unnecessary if it is to be installed in a
module where hearing protection will anyway have to be worn because of existing noise levels.
Vibration
The gas moving through the pipelines travels at high velocities and pressures causing the piping
system to vibrate. Excessive vibration could cause the pipes to fail. The first course of action is
to clamp and secure all the pipelines to the hub. Then, given the massive increase of gas in the
hub’s system, the team needed to find a simple, cost effective way to monitor piping vibrations.
Fire hazards
Fire hazards can result from the following causes:
1. High surface temperature of equipment;
2. Risks of sparks during refueling;
3. Flames through gasifier air inlet on refueling lid.
Risks can be considerably decreased by taking the following precautions:
34 | P a g e
1. Insulation of hot parts of the system;
2. Installation of double sluice filling device;
3. Installation of back-firing valve in gasifier inlet
Explosion hazards
Explosions can occur if the gas is mixed with sufficient air to form an explosive mixture.
This could occur for several reasons:
1. Air leakage into the gas system;
2. Air penetration during refueling;
3. Air leakage into a cold gasifier still containing gas which subsequently ignites;
4. Backfiring from the fan exhaust burner when the system is filled with a combustible
mixture of air and gas during starting-up.
Erosion
The high velocities at which the gas and liquids flow through the pipelines combined with
any particulates, for example: sand, can cause erosion and failure of pipelines within a matter of
minutes. Increasing the gas in the hub would make the piping system more vulnerable to
erosion. Installing erosion monitoring probes (a technology usually deployed in flow lines and
wellheads) and ultrasonic thickness measurement devices that to conduct real-time monitoring
of the pipes for any erosion issues. As well as taking preventative measures using frac-pack
downhole to prevent sand production in the wells from early on in the life of the project.
Corrosion and Prevention Methods

Corrosion Problems and Causes:
The four types of corrosion and the common factors that cause it are:
1. Weight loss corrosion
2. Stress corrosion or cracked pipes
3. Corrosion fatigue
4. Galvanic corrosion (due to currents caused by a mixture of metals)
 CATHODIC PROTECTION
This method of dealing with corrosion uses an electrical current. This controls the corrosion from
becoming worse by neutralizing it. Cathodic protection is used frequently with pipelines that are
underground or in water. If done with a new pipeline, it can actually prevent corrosion from
forming.
 CORROSION INHIBITORS
35 | P a g e
One other option for corrosion protection methods includes corrosion inhibitors. This method
involves adding compounds to pipelines. They can prevent corrosion from occurring on the
inside by creating a thin layer of product. Corrosion inhibitors are a popular choice because they
are cost effective. Take one small step can help prevent costly pipeline issues down the road
like oil spills.
 COATINGS AND LININGS
Using coatings are one of the easiest ways to protect your pipes against corrosion. Coatings
and linings can be used on pipes that are above or underground. They frequently are used in
combination with cathodic protection. Some materials that are used to add defense to your
pipelines include epoxy and zinc. Sometimes urethane is also used. These materials must be
properly applied and cured to be effective.
 PIPELINE DETECTION
Pipelines are currently inspected by a device called a smart pig, an electronic sensor that
travels through the pipe detecting cracks or welding defects. Despite regular inspection, leaks
still occur. Smart Pigs or Pipeline Inspection Gauges are large pieces of machinery pulled
together with powerful technology that help with the maintenance of transmission pipelines.
These pipeline pigging devices are major components to pipeline safety and accident
prevention. These inspection tools provide data on the condition of pipelines which help gauge
the health and integrity of the pipes. In a time where environmental protection is key and of
global concern, smart pigs are able to prevent major disasters.
Figure 2. 22: PIG used to investigate pipeline quality.
Source: https://smartpigs.net/
36 | P a g e
Methods of Separation (Hydrocarbons from Water)
The release of hydrocarbons into the environment can be toxic to the surrounding wildlife and
preventative measures should be employed and practiced a few methods are listed below.
 Gravity separation
Gravity separation is the first step of removal of hydrocarbon from water.
1. This is the simplest and economical way to remove large quantities of free oil from water.
2. The first stage of gravity separation is to pass the water through large tanks to allow the
phases to separate.
3. These tanks are called free knockout, wash tanks, settling tanks or gun barrels.
4. Heater treater
 Gas flotation
1. This removes suspended oil droplets from water.
2. If gas bubbles are passed through an emulsion of oil-in-water, the oil droplets will attach
to the bubbles and be carried to the top of the mixture where they can be removed.
3. This method is aided by the addition of chemicals coagulants
4. Carbon dioxide has also been used as the flotation gas. Gas flotation can cause a foam
that is difficult to break.
5. This system can reduce oil concentrations to -15-100 mg/l with a typical average of 40
mg/l
 Filtration
Another method to remove oil droplets from water is to pass the water through water-wet filters
or membranes
1. The filter media use capillary pressure to trap oil and prevent it from passing out of the
filter
2. Advanced filtration processes include cross-flow membranes such as micro-filtration and
ultra-filtration.
3. The emulsion leaving the tube without passing through the filter can be recycled through
the filter a number of times to further concentrate the emulsion for other types of
treatment disposal.
 Filtration coalescence
37 | P a g e
This is another filtration where the water is passed through oil-wet filters. The oil droplets attach
to the filter matrix and coalesce into larger ones.
1. When the filter medium has become saturated, the larger oil drops will flow out the filter,
either by continued injection or by back-washing.
2. The larger oil droplets can be easily removed from the water by subsequent gravity
separation
3. Sand, gravel, or glass fibres are common media used for this process.
 Chemical coagulant
1. The removal of small, suspended oil droplets can be aided by adding chemicals that
coagulate and flocculate the droplets
2. These chemicals typically overcome the electrostatic repulsion charges on the individual
droplets, allowing them to coagulate into larger drops
3. These drops can then be removed with gravity separation
4. Chemicals used include lime, alum, and polyelectrolytes
 Electric field separation

Applying an electric field voltage to the water separates oil from water.
1. The fields can be applied through either direct or an alternating current.
2. Oil droplets in an oil-in-water emulsion have a negative surface charge that can be
manipulated to facilitate their removal When a direct current is applied to the water
containing such an emulsion, the oil will migrate towards the positive electrode.
3. This process can only be done in saline water.
4. When an alternating current is applied, the droplets may flocculate if a metal hydroxide is
present.
5. The process is known as alternating current electrocoagulation
 Hydro-clones
38 | P a g e
This can be used to further separate oil and water
1. Methods of separation: a high velocity stream is injected tangentially into the conically-
shaped hydro-cyclones, creating a vortex.
2. The oil comes out one end, while the water comes out the other.
3. The effectiveness of hydro-cyclones in separating oil and water depends on a large
number of parameters, including oil droplets size and oil/water density difference, inlet
water velocity, solution gas, solids and systems geometry.
 Adsorption
An effective way to remove low levels of dissolved hydrocarbons is to adsorb it onto solid
medium
1. Activated carbon is most widely used medium
2. The pH and temperature of the system impacts the effectiveness of activated carbon on
removing different hydrocarbons compounds
3. All free oil must be removed prior to the use of activated carbon to prevent the oil from
clogging the carbon.
4. Natural and synthetic resins have also been developed that have proven effective in
removing dissolved hydrocarbons from water.
Below in Figure 2. 22 we can see the specified ranges and concentrations for harmful
substances and company’s waste water and run off are expected to be tested and held to this
standard.
39 | P a g e
Figure 2. 23: Water pollution reference quality standards.
Source: EMA 2000
Economics
Taxes are imposed on companies operating within the petroleum industry of Trinidad and
Tobago they vary based on the hydrocarbon fluid therefore gas and oil has two different taxes.
40 | P a g e
Production Based Taxes
Tax Rates
Royalty Crude Oil: 12.5% as of 01/01/2018
Supplemental Petroleum Tax (SPT) Variable rates applicable only to Crude Oil Income
Petroleum Production Levy (PPL) Up to 4% of gross income from crude
Petroleum Impost (PI) Determined each year based on administrative costs of the
Ministry of Energy
Green Fund Levy (GFL) 0.3% of gross sales or receipts
Royalty
Under the Petroleum Act, operators are required to pay royalties of 12.5% for oil and a lower
percentage for gas.
Supplemental Petroleum Tax
Production Levy
Established in 1974, this levy was used to buffer the varying petroleum product prices and
provide a general level of market stability.
41 | P a g e
Green Fund Levy
This Levy came into effect from January 2001, at a three percentage (3%) of the gross sales or
receipts and it is not tax deductible.
Petroleum Profit Tax

According to the Ministry of Energy, the Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) is applicable to all
producers and refinery operators.
Unemployment Levy
This Act was enacted in 1970 and is intended to provide funds to assist in the Government’s
social programs.
All companies are required to pay these taxes unless they have other arrangements such as a
product sharing agreement (PSC).
Chapter 3: Theory
In this chapter we will discuss a few of the correlations used by the simulator and other
mathematical equations used through the thesis. In figure 1 the flow chart is a simplified and
general path based on how a numerical simulator calculates each grid block is shown.
42 | P a g e
Figure 3. 1: Flow chart for numerical simulation models.
Figure 3. 2: How the simulation calculates flow and mass balance of each grid block.
Source: GEM Handbook
Saturation
Since the reservoir fluid (gas condensates) being analyzed is comprised of three phase flow the
following saturation calculation is applied.
𝑆 = 𝑆𝑜 + 𝑆𝑔 + 𝑆𝑤
43 | P a g e
Molecular Weight
The molecular weight (MW) of each of the phases in a VLE system is calculated as a function of
the molecular weight of the individual components (MW i), provided that both the composition of
the gas (yi):
𝑀𝑊𝑔 = ∑ 𝑦𝑖 𝑀𝑊𝑖
𝑖=1
the liquid (xi) are known:
𝑀𝑊𝑙 = ∑ 𝑥𝑖 𝑀𝑊𝑖
𝑖=1
Density
Density of the fluid is measured using the ideal gas law in some case for condensates:
𝑃 𝑀𝑊𝑓
𝜌𝑓 = ( )
𝑅𝑇 𝑍𝑓
Specific Gravity
Specific gravity is defined as the ratio of fluid density to the density of a reference substance,
both defined at the same pressure and temperature. These densities are usually defined at
standard conditions (14.7 psia and 60°F). For a condensate, oil or a liquid, the reference
substance is water:
(𝜌𝑜 )𝑠𝑐
𝛾𝑜 =
(𝜌𝑤 )𝑠𝑐
The value of water density at standard conditions is 62.4 lbm/ft3 approximately. For a natural
gas, or any other gas for this matter, the reference substance is air:
(𝜌𝑔 )𝑠𝑐
𝛾𝑔 =
(𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 )𝑠𝑐
44 | P a g e
Volumetric Factors (Bo and Bg)
The formation volume factor of a natural gas (Bg) relates the volume of 1 lbmol of gas at
reservoir conditions to the volume of the same lbmol of gas at standard conditions, as follows:
Volume of 1 lbmol of gas at reservoir conditions, RCF

𝐵𝑔 =
Volume of 1lbmol gas at standard conditions, SCF
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑏𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠, 𝑅𝐵

𝐵𝑜 =
Volume of that lbmol after going through seperation, STB
Relative Permeability Data
Water relative permeability is a function of water saturation
𝐾𝑟𝑤 = 𝑓(𝑆𝑤 )
And gas relative permability is a function of gas saturation
𝐾𝑟𝑔 = 𝑓(𝑆𝑔 )
API
Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineers also use another gravity term which is called API gravity.
It is used for liquids (e.g., condensates) and is defined as:
141.5
𝐴𝑃𝐼 = − 131.5
𝛾0
Pressure Drawdown
DWA defines the maximum drawdown within all open layers
∆𝑃𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝐼,𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 ± (𝑃𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘1 − 𝑃𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙1 )
DWB specifies the average drawdown for all open layers:
∆𝑃𝑑 = ± ∑ 𝑃𝐼1 (𝑃𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘1 − 𝑃𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙1 ) / ∑ 𝑃𝐼1

1,𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 1,𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛
45 | P a g e
Generalized Corey
Similar to the Corey correlation, but developed for a wider range of rock and wettability
characteristics. This correlation can be used to change the endpoints of water-oil and gas-liquid
relative permeability curves while still retaining the shape of the curves.
𝐾𝑟𝑤 = 𝐾𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑟𝑜 × ((𝑆𝑤 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 )/(1.0 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 − 𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑟𝑤 )) × 𝑁𝑤
𝐾𝑟𝑜𝑤 = 𝐾𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑤 × ((𝑆𝑜 − 𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤 )/(1.0 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐𝑜𝑛 − 𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤 )) × 𝑁𝑜𝑤
𝐾𝑟𝑜𝑔 = 𝐾𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑐 × ((𝑆𝑙 − 𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑔 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐𝑜𝑛 )/(1.0 − 𝑆𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑛 − 𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑔 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐𝑜𝑛 )) × 𝑁𝑜𝑔
𝐾𝑟𝑔 = 𝐾𝑟𝑔𝑐𝑙 × ((𝑆𝑔 − 𝑆𝑔𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 )/(1.0 − 𝑆𝑔𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 − 𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑟𝑔 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐𝑜𝑛 )) × 𝑁𝑔
Figure 3. 3: Oil Water Table.
Source: Gem handbook.
Figure 3. 4: Liquid Gas Table
Source: Gem Handbook.
46 | P a g e
Peng and Robison (1976)
Peng and Robinson introduced the following modified vdW EOS:
𝛼𝑎
(𝑃 + ) (ῦ − 𝑏) = 𝑅𝑇
ῦ2 + 2𝑏ῦ − 𝑏 2
or, explicitly in pressure,
𝑅𝑇 𝛼𝑎
𝑃= − 2
ῦ − 𝑏 ῦ + 2𝑏ῦ − 𝑏 2
Co-efficient “a” and “b” are made functions of the critical properties by imposing the criticality
conditions. This yields:
𝛼 = [1 + (0.37464 + 1.54226𝜔 − 0.26992𝜔2 )(1 − √𝑇𝑟 )]2
𝑅 2 𝑇𝑐2
a = 0.45724
𝑃𝑐
𝑅𝑇𝑐
𝑏 = 0.07780
𝑃𝑐
The PR mixing rules are:
(𝛼𝑎)𝑚 = ∑ ∑ 𝑦𝑖 𝑦𝑗 (∝ 𝑎)𝑖𝑗 ; (∝ 𝑎)𝑖𝑗 = √(∝ 𝑎)𝑖 (∝ 𝑎)𝑗 (1 − 𝑘𝑖𝑗 )
𝑏𝑚 = ∑ 𝑦𝑖 𝑏𝑖
𝑖
Aquifer (Tracy Carter)
Aquifers usually exist naturally in formations and fall under several categories
1. Degree of pressure maintenance

 Active (Strong) water drive
 Partial (Moderate) water drive
 Limited (Weak) water drive
47 | P a g e
2. Flow regimes
 Steady-State
 Semi Steady State
 Unsteady State
3. Outer boundary conditions
 Infinite Acting systems
 Finite Acting Systems
4. Flow geometries
 Edge Water Drive
 Bottom Water Drive
 Linear Water Drive
Firstly calculate the total compressibility
𝑐𝑡 = 𝑐𝑤 + 𝑐𝑓 (𝑝𝑠𝑖 −1 )
Next B
𝐵 = 1.119∅𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑒2 ℎ𝑓 (𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑠/𝑝𝑠𝑖)
𝜃
𝑓 = 360
𝑘𝑡
𝑡𝐷 = 6.328 × 10−3
∅𝜇𝑤 𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑒2 ℎ𝑓
If 𝑡𝐷 > 100, use:
𝑝𝐷 = 0.5[𝐿𝑛(𝑡𝐷 ) + 0.80907]
1
𝑝𝐷′ =
2𝑡𝐷
′
𝐵∆𝑝𝑛 −(𝑊𝑒 )𝑛−1 ×(𝑝𝐷 )𝑛
(𝑊𝑒 )𝑛 = (𝑊𝑒 )𝑛−1 + [(𝑡𝐷 )𝑛 − (𝑡𝐷 )𝑛−1 ][ (𝑝 ′ ] (bbls)
𝐷 )𝑛 −(𝑡𝐷 )𝑛−1 (𝑝𝐷 )𝑛
48 | P a g e
Figure 3. 5: Heating value for individual components of the gas stream.
49 | P a g e
Figure 3. 6: Concentrations and standard values to determine if a gas is pipeline quality.
1 𝑔. 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 = 22.3 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 0.83643358 𝑠𝑐𝑓
𝐶𝑂2 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑁2 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑠𝑐𝑓) = [(1 𝑔. 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠) × 0.83643358] × 0.98
𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 (2% 𝐶𝑂2\𝑁2)(𝑠𝑐𝑓) = 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 − ([(1 𝑔. 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠) × 0.83643358] × 0.98)
50 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Methodology
In a paper published in 2014 by Y. H. Seah, A. C. Gringarten, M. A. Giddins and K.
Burton they have investigated both lean and rich condensate fluids and velocity dependent
relative permeability models, to predict condensate dropout under typical operating condition.
The effectiveness of the different production methods and remediation solutions in minimizing
condensate buildup below the dew point pressure was quantified; reservoirs were tested in
which six vertical wells were compared with two horizontal wells. Further expansion into their
work recommended with the exception of low permeability and tight formations was presented in
their recommendations. Key focus on optimizing on these retrograde gas condensate reservoirs
is done and problems associated with production of these reservoirs discussed. Through their
work and some recommendations that they made I have decided to conduct research on further
work they have proposed and test several simulation model on a reservoir located in Trinidad
and Tobago.
After reviewing a series of papers, I made the choice to choose the Sand 20 located in
the Mahogany field situated in the Columbus Basin. This choice was made due to the
availability of data and some work recommended in a paper by J. Ali-Nandalal who also had
similar ideas as the authors of the previous paper mentioned. From these papers on the
mahogany field a top structure map along with well locations can be obtained, the maps were
then used as our source to create the reservoir in petrel due to the lack of a net of pay and sand
maps we assumed the structure of the top of the reservoir and the thickness equal throughout.
The thickness and other petrophysical properties were derived using core data and logs from Ali
(2000).
We had a few problems with the scaling of the map since one side of the co-ordinates
for the map was missing and had to be estimated used another image with a scale of 5000 feet.
The co-ordinates were determined to be in UTM converted to feet using google earth as a
reference. This scale along with the coordinates were used to properly digitized the map, the
map is not accurately depicted in the model due to some short comings with the image used to
scale the map therefore the areal extent of the reservoir is not perfect but it is within a
reasonable degree of accuracy that is acceptable.
51 | P a g e
Next the aquifers in both faults were depicted with the depth and locations shown
vaguely, there was some difficulty with modeling the exact pressure match for the model
however after noticing we were not on our target time in our ghantt chart we decided to move
ahead with the project. We were able to obtain history match data however the data had a
missing axis and not labeled so some assumptions were made to move ahead. Water
production in both fault blocks were assumed to be in barrels and the gas production was
scaled using webplotdigitizer since we knew the initial date for a single when it came on
production and the initial production value was denoted two values for production 0 scf and
161MMscf were the points plotted to aid the program to digitize the data properly. Errors were
noticed that the data like any history match data had a degree of inaccuracy with unexplained
increases in water production for long periods of time.
The fault blocks were also denoted as being sealing this is due to a paper by Gibson
where he explained the difference in the height of the foot wall and hanging wall would create a
large shale gouge ratio creating a seal. This is also further backed up by the movement of the
aquifers in both blocks their gas water contacts moved at different rates proving the 100 fault
between fault block 4 and 5 was sealing. The fault block adjacent to fault block 4 is also sealing
since their gas water contacts acted differently as they are being produced from. Next PVT data
was obtained for the field however we didn’t have the exact composition of the field since that
data was not readily available and in a paper published by Raffie Hosein. Fluid phase envelope
is shown in Table 4. 1
Most of the petrophysical data and information for the field was derived from the paper
written by Ali-Nandalal & Gunter (2003, January 1) on the mahogany sand 20. Next a full field
model was developed in CMG and imported to GEM this model is seen in Figure 4. 2: Full Field
ModelFigure 4. 22. Next we did a historical match using CMOST to aid in finding the best match
for the data we were given. A global error of 13.14% was received an again due to the time
constraint it was found that it was acceptable and we moved ahead with the project. The results
for each fault block can be seen from Figure 4 4 to Figure 4 9.
52 | P a g e
Figure 4 1: Fluid model generated by WINPROP.
Figure 4. 2: Full Field Model
53 | P a g e
Figure 4 3: Global error for CMOST (13.18 %)
Figure 4 4: Gas production match for fault block 4.
Figure 4 5: Water Production for fault block 4.
54 | P a g e
Figure 4 6: Reservoir Pressure for fault block 4.
Figure 4 7: Gas Production for fault block 5.
55 | P a g e
Figure 4 8: Water Production for fault block 5.
Figure 4 9: Reservoir Pressure for fault block 5
56 | P a g e
These are the final results received by CMOST shown below in Table 4. 1.
Parameters Values
Swcon 0.1
I_Swcrit 0
Swcrit 0.1
Soirw 0.1
I_Sorw 0.1
Sorw 0.2
Krocw 0.7
Krwiro 0.4
nw 2
no 3.5
Soirg 0.15
I_Sorg 0.05
Sorg 0.2
Sgcrit 0.03
Sgcon 0
Krgcl 1
Krogcg 0.7
nog 1.5
ng 3
PERMI 1863.25
PERMK 0.08125
POR 0.3034
PORaq1 0.1886
PORaq2 0.10025
PRES 4824
Permaq1 2.17
Permaq2 5.635
SW 0.154375
Table 4. 1: New model from CMG with 13.14% global error.
57 | P a g e
The rock fluid model is also shown below.
Water Oil Table Liquid Gas Table
Sw Krw Krow Sl Krg Krog
0.1 0 0.7 0.25 1 0
0.12 0.00025 0.632464 0.27 0.919997 0
0.14 0.001 0.569716 0.289 0.844379 0
0.16 0.00225 0.511546 0.309 0.773022 0.001057
0.18 0.004 0.457747 0.329 0.705803 0.005887
0.2 0.00625 0.408117 0.349 0.642598 0.012839
0.22 0.009 0.362454 0.368 0.583284 0.021391
0.24 0.01225 0.320563 0.388 0.527737 0.031285
0.26 0.016 0.282249 0.408 0.475834 0.04236
0.28 0.02025 0.247324 0.428 0.42745 0.054499
0.3 0.025 0.215601 0.447 0.382463 0.067617
0.32 0.03025 0.186896 0.467 0.340748 0.081646
0.34 0.036 0.16103 0.487 0.302183 0.09653
0.36 0.04225 0.137829 0.507 0.266643 0.112223
0.38 0.049 0.117119 0.526 0.234005 0.128684
0.4 0.05625 0.098734 0.546 0.204145 0.145879
0.42 0.064 0.082508 0.566 0.17694 0.163779
0.44 0.07225 0.068283 0.586 0.152266 0.182356
0.46 0.081 0.055902 0.605 0.129999 0.201587
0.48 0.09025 0.045215 0.625 0.110017 0.22145
0.5 0.1 0.036073 0.645 0.092195 0.241926
0.52 0.11025 0.028334 0.664 0.07641 0.262997
0.54 0.121 0.021861 0.684 0.062538 0.284646
0.56 0.13225 0.016519 0.704 0.050455 0.306858
0.58 0.144 0.012182 0.724 0.040039 0.329621
0.6 0.15625 0.008727 0.743 0.031165 0.352919
0.62 0.169 0.006035 0.763 0.023709 0.376742
0.64 0.18225 0.003996 0.783 0.017549 0.401079
0.66 0.196 0.002504 0.803 0.012561 0.425918
0.68 0.21025 0.00146 0.822 0.008621 0.451249
0.7 0.225 0.000771 0.842 0.005605 0.477064
0.72 0.24025 0.000353 0.862 0.00339 0.503353
0.74 0.256 0.000129 0.882 0.001852 0.530108
0.76 0.27225 0.000031 0.901 0.000868 0.55732
0.78 0.289 0.000003 0.921 0.000314 0.584983
0.8 0.30625 0 0.941 0.000067 0.61309
0.82 0.324 0 0.961 0.000002 0.641632
0.84 0.34225 0 0.98 0 0.670604
0.9 0.4 0 1 0 0.7
Table 4. 2: Rock fluid model.
58 | P a g e
With a functioning model we are now able to develop our optimization plan during
previous review of literature injecting down dip presents a significant increase in production for
both natural gas and gas condensates. It should be noted also if we develop our drilling plan to
injecting up dip the water encroachment for the production wells down dip water-outs these
wells, therefore the best chances are to produce up dip and inject down dip. We devised a plan
of drilling/converting well up dip of the reservoir in both fault block and had a few injection wells
place in areas the aquifer has not reached. For nitrogen and carbon dioxide six producer wells
would be used and a total of six injector wells at the outer edges of the reservoir would be used
to sweep the reservoir with the aid of the aquifer. This method was not used for the methane
injection however due to the aquifer encroachment we moved the injector wells closer to our
producers and tried to preserve as much methane we produced and reinjected into the field.
Next we had to determine a method for removing the carbon dioxide and nitrogen from
the gas stream it is important to note that both fluids are impurities in the gas stream and not
desirable. Therefore we decide employ the use of membrane technology this method allow up
to 40% of carbon dioxide or nitrogen molar concentration to be removed each individual
production well. It was noted the higher we injected the faster the break through time for the gas
and the faster the concentration would increase this isn’t effective in recovering high amounts of
hydrocarbons. Therefore, a two month period before the gas reaches it 40% concentration limit
it was decided that the injectors would be closed and blowdown the field. This improved the
recoveries for most of the injection cases especially with the continuous injection cases.
In the case of the methane injection we did not exceed the total hydrocarbon pore volume since
the field has reached a mature stage and the production didn’t allow for much re-pressurization.
A balance between production and reinjection was not possible to yield higher recoveries.
Therefore, more focus was place on carbon dioxide and nitrogen injection where they performed
significantly better in terms of natural gas production although the condensate production was at
11% in some cases for the methane injection the total volume recovered would be not as
profitable as the natural gas.
59 | P a g e
Chapter 5: Results and Discussion
Horizontal Well vs Vertical Wells
In the case of horizontal versus vertical wells it was proven that the conclusion made by
the authors of the Mahogany sand 20 paper Ali-Nandalal & Gunter (2003, January 1) was
factual the both wells performed almost equally in both the field model and the test model
Appendix R this data would show that it is not cost effective to drill horizontal wells since they
cost more to drill.
Aquifer Effect on Condensate Production
We tested several cases in which we varied the strength of the aquifer in the field by
varying its porosity, permeability, pressure exponents and aquifer type. It was determined that
the cumulative oil production increased with the strength of the aquifer this is possibly due to the
pressure response by a stronger aquifer presence in the field reducing the pressure drop over
time.
Continuous Injection versus Water Alternating Gas Injection
For both methods provided very different results however the outcome was quite clear
based on the literature review. The WAG outperformed the continuous injection in all three
cases of injection fluids
60 | P a g e
61 | P a g e
Chapter 6: Learning, Conclusions and Recommendations
 WAG performed significantly better than continuous injection.
 Nitrogen injection had a significantly higher volume of recovery for natural gas in most of
the injection cases.
 WAG is more cost effective than continuous gas injection
62 | P a g e
63 | P a g e
References
http://www.fao.org/3/t0512e/T0512e0f.htm
64 | P a g e
65 | P a g e
Appendix
Aquifer Models
Appendix A: Showing the aquifer location in fault block 5.
66 | P a g e
Appendix B: Showing the location of the aquifer in fault block 4.
Appendix C: Showing the settings selected to create the aquifers.
67 | P a g e
Appendix D: Showing values for fault block 4.
Appendix E: Showing values for fault block 5.
68 | P a g e
Aquifer Type
Appendix F: Showing the average reservoir pressure for the different aquifer types.
Appendix G: Showing the cumulative water production for the different type of aquifers.
69 | P a g e
Appendix H: Showing the cumulative oil production for the different types of aquifers.
Permeability Case
Appendix I: Showing the average reservoir pressure as permeability is increased.
70 | P a g e
Appendix J: Showing the cumulative oil production as permeability is increased.
Appendix K: Showing the cumulative water production as permeability is increased.
71 | P a g e
Porosity Cases
Appendix L: Showing the average reservoir pressure as porosity is increased.
Appendix M: Showing the cumulative oil production as porosity is increased.
72 | P a g e
Appendix N: Showing the cumulative water production as porosity is increased.
Pressure exponent Cases
Appendix O: Showing average reservoir pressure with different pressure exponents.
73 | P a g e
Appendix P: Showing the cumulative oil production with different pressure exponents.
Appendix Q: Showing the cumulative water production with different pressure exponents.
74 | P a g e
Horizontal Test Models
Appendix R: Showing the test model for the cases involving horizontal vs vertical wells.
Appendix S: Showing the horizontal length of the well in the test model.
75 | P a g e
Appendix T: Showing cumulative gas production for the test model, horizontal vs vertical cases
at different production rates over a 20 year period.
Appendix U: Showing cumulative oil production for the test model, horizontal vs vertical cases at
different production rates over a 20 year period.
76 | P a g e
Appendix V: Showing the well BHP for the test model, horizontal vs vertical cases at different
production rates over a 20 year period.
Appendix W: Showing the actual field model with the new horizontal well in place to test
horizontal vs vertical wells.
77 | P a g e
Appendix X: Showing the horizontal length of the well in the field model.
Appendix Y: Showing the cumulative gas production for the field model, horizontal vs vertical
cases at different production rates over a 20 year period.
78 | P a g e
Appendix Z: Showing the cumulative oil production for the field model, horizontal vs vertical
cases at different production rates over a 20 year period.
Appendix AA: Showing the Well BHP for the field model, horizontal vs vertical cases at different
production rates over a 20 year period.
79 | P a g e
Appendix BB: Showing results for continuous CO2 injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
Appendix CC: Showing results for CO2 WAG (1:1 ratio) injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
80 | P a g e
Appendix DD: Showing results for CO2 WAG (1:2 ratio) injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
Appendix EE: Showing results for CO2 WAG (1:3 ratio) injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
81 | P a g e
Appendix FF: Showing results for CO2 WAG (1:1 ratio at 3m water and 6m gas) injection at
different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
Appendix GG: Showing results for CH4 continuous injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
82 | P a g e
Appendix HH: Showing results for CH4 WAG (1:1 ratio) injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
Appendix II: Showing results for CH4 WAG (1:2 ratio) injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
83 | P a g e
Appendix JJ: Showing results for CH4 WAG (1:3 ratio) injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
Appendix KK: Showing results for CH4 WAG (1:1 ratio with 3m water and 6m gas) injection at
84 | P a g e
Appendix LL: Showing results for N2 continuous injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
Appendix MM: Showing results for N2 WAG (1:1 ratio) injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
85 | P a g e
Appendix NN: Showing results for N2 WAG (1:2 ratio) injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
Appendix OO: Showing results for N2 WAG (1:3 ratio) injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
86 | P a g e
Appendix PP: Showing results for N2 WAG (1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas) injection at different
hydrocarbon pore volumes.
Appendix QQ: CO2 concentration for CO2 continuous injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
87 | P a g e
Appendix RR: Gas production with 2% CO2 concentration for CO2 continuous injection at
Appendix SS: Cumulative oil production for CO2 continuous injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
Appendix TT: Average reservoir pressure for CO2 continuous injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
88 | P a g e
Appendix UU: CO2 Concentration for CO2 WAG 1:1 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
Appendix VV: Gas Production with 2% CO2 concentration for CO2 WAG 1:1 ratio injection at
89 | P a g e
Appendix WW: Cumulative oil production for CO2 WAG 1:1 ratio injection at different
Appendix XX: Pressure for CO2 WAG 1:1 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
Appendix YY: CO2 concentration for CO2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
90 | P a g e
Appendix ZZ: Gas production with 2% CO2 concentration for CO2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at
Appendix AAA: Cumulative oil production for CO2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at different
91 | P a g e
Appendix BBB: Pressure for CO2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
Appendix CCC: CO2 concentration for CO2 WAG 1:3 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
92 | P a g e
Appendix DDD: Gas production with 2% CO2 for CO2 WAG 1:3 ratio injection at different
Appendix EEE: Cumulative oil production for CO2 WAG 1:3 ratio injection at different
Appendix FFF: Pressure for CO2 WAG 1:3 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
93 | P a g e
Appendix GGG: CO2 concentration for CO2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m Water and 6m Gas injection at
Appendix HHH: Gas production with 2% CO2 for CO2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m Water and 6m Gas
injection at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
94 | P a g e
Appendix III: Cumulative Oil Production for CO2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m Water and 6m Gas injection
at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
Appendix JJJ: Pressure for CO2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m Water and 6m Gas injection at different
Appendix KKK: N2 Concentration for Continuous N2 injection at different hydrocarbon pore

volumes.
95 | P a g e
Appendix LLL: Gas production with 2% N2 for Continuous N2 injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
Appendix MMM: Cumulative oil production for Continuous N2 injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
Appendix NNN: Pressure for Continuous N2 injection at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
96 | P a g e
Appendix OOO: N2 Concentration for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
Appendix PPP: Gas production with 2% N2 for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio injection at different
97 | P a g e
Appendix QQQ: Cumulative oil production for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio injection at different
Appendix RRR: Pressure for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
Appendix SSS: N2 Concentration for N2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
98 | P a g e
Appendix TTT: Cumulative gas production for N2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at different
Appendix UUU: Cumulative oil production for N2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at different
Appendix VVV: Cumulative water production for N2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at different
99 | P a g e
Appendix WWW: Cumulative water injection for N2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at different
Appendix XXX: Cumulative gas injection for N2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
Appendix YYY: Gas Production with 2% N2 for N2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at different
100 | P a g e
Appendix ZZZ: Pressure for N2 WAG 1:2 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
Appendix AAAA: N2 concentration for N2 WAG 1:3 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
Appendix BBBB: Gas Production with 2% N2 for N2 WAG 1:3 ratio injection at different
101 | P a g e
Appendix CCCC: Cumulative oil production for N2 WAG 1:3 ratio injection at different
Appendix DDDD: Pressure for N2 WAG 1:3 ratio injection at different hydrocarbon pore
volumes.
Appendix EEEE: N2 Concentration for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas injection at
102 | P a g e
Appendix FFFF: Cumulative Gas Production for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas
Appendix GGGG: Cumulative Oil Production for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas
Appendix HHHH: Cumulative Water Production for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas
103 | P a g e
Appendix IIII: Gas Production with 2% N2 for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas injection
at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
Appendix JJJJ: Cumulative gas injection for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas injection at
Appendix KKKK: Cumulative water injection for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas
104 | P a g e
Appendix LLLL: Pressure for N2 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas injection at different
Appendix MMMM: Cumulative gas production for continuous CH4 injection at different
Appendix NNNN: Cumulative oil production for continuous CH4 injection at different
105 | P a g e
Appendix OOOO: Cumulative methane injection for continuous CH4 injection at different
Appendix PPPP: Pressure for continuous CH4 injection at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
Appendix QQQQ: Cumulative gas production for CH4 WAG 1:1 injection at different
106 | P a g e
Appendix RRRR: Cumulative oil production for CH4 WAG 1:1 injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
Appendix SSSS: Cumulative Methane injection for CH4 WAG 1:1 injection at different
Appendix TTTT: Pressure for CH4 WAG 1:1 injection at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
107 | P a g e
Appendix UUUU: Cumulative gas production for CH4 WAG 1:2 injection at different
Appendix VVVV: Cumulative oil production for CH4 WAG 1:2 injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
Appendix WWWW: Cumulative gas injection for CH4 WAG 1:2 injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
108 | P a g e
Appendix XXXX: Pressure for CH4 WAG 1:2 injection at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
Appendix YYYY: Cumulative gas production for CH4 WAG 1:3 injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
Appendix ZZZZ: Cumulative oil production for CH4 WAG 1:3 injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
109 | P a g e
Appendix AAAAA: Cumulative gas injection for CH4 WAG 1:3 injection at different hydrocarbon
pore volumes.
Appendix BBBBB: Pressure for CH4 WAG 1:3 injection at different hydrocarbon pore volumes.
Appendix CCCCC: Cumulative gas production for CH4 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas
110 | P a g e
Appendix DDDDD: Cumulative oil production for CH4 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas
Appendix EEEEE: Cumulative gas injection for CH4 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas
Appendix FFFFF: Pressure for CH4 WAG 1:1 ratio 3m water and 6m gas injection at different
111 | P a g e
112 | P a g e

V2 Objectives

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

V2 Objectives

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Investigative Methods for the

Optimization of Natural Gas and Gas

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Gas Condensates.................................................................................................................. 10

2.1.1 Rich Condensates versus Lean Condensates .............................................................................. 13

2.2 Mahogany Field.................................................................................................................... 17

2.2.1 Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Gas Injection ......................................................................................................................... 27

Horizontal vs Vertical Wells .............................................................................................. 30

Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen Removal Process Description ...................................................... 31

Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) ....................................................................................... 32

Multiple exposures .............................................................................................................................. 32

Production Based Taxes ...................................................................................................................... 40

Chapter 3: Theory ...................................................................................................................... 42

Chapter 4: Methodology ............................................................................................................. 50

Chapter 5: Results and Discussion ............................................................................................. 59

Chapter 6: Learning, Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................... 61

Aquifer Models .................................................................................................................................. 65

2. To consider efficient reservoir management geared towards maximizing recoverable

3. To evaluate the impact of aquifer support on condensate recovery.

4. To evaluate HSE impacts and mitigation measures.

Figure 2. 6: Shows productivity varies as the productivity ratio increase.

Next, an intermediate region shows a rapid increase in liquid saturation and a

Figure 2. 9: Geological map for the Columbus Basin.

2.2.2 Contour Map

Figure 2. 11: Contour Structure Map for Mahogany Sand 20.

Figure 2. 12: Map used to scale our structure contour map.

Well Name Fault Block Depth Description

Table 2. 2 Showing wells that show up within the contour map.

Figure 2. 15: Showing another well log penetrating the sand.

Core Data Value

2.2.5 Petro-physical Data

In Error! Reference source not found.Table 2. 4 further information gathered from

Petro-physical Property Values

2.2.6 PVT Data

Sample PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4 PL5 PL6

2.2.6 Production Data

Gas cycling processes to be considered it is requires reliable information of

Horizontal vs Vertical Wells

Y. H. Seah, A. C. Gringarten, M. A. Giddins and K. Burton (2014) Shows in their study

Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen Removal Process Description

Figure 2. 21: Example of CO2 separation system at production wells.

CO2 content reduced to required specifications (<2 mol% or optimal levels):

Health, Safety and Environment (HSE)

Introduction of hazardous substances offshore into marine environments can be

Corrosion and Prevention Methods

Figure 2. 22: PIG used to investigate pipeline quality.

 Electric field separation

Source: EMA 2000

Royalty Crude Oil: 12.5% as of 01/01/2018

Petroleum Production Levy (PPL) Up to 4% of gross income from crude

Green Fund Levy (GFL) 0.3% of gross sales or receipts

Supplemental Petroleum Tax

Petroleum Profit Tax

Source: GEM Handbook

the liquid (xi) are known:

Volume of 1 lbmol of gas at reservoir conditions, RCF

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑏𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠, 𝑅𝐵

Relative Permeability Data

Water relative permeability is a function of water saturation

And gas relative permability is a function of gas saturation

DWA defines the maximum drawdown within all open layers

∆𝑃𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝐼,𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 ± (𝑃𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘1 − 𝑃𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙1 )