1-Create a geological model of sandstone reservoir from scratch. 2-To investigate the macroscopic & microscopic sweep efficiency between voidage replacement and production balancing. 3-To optimize the incremental oil recovery and CO2 sequestration in a sandstone reservoir. Voidage Replacement Ratio (VRR)/ Production Balancing strategy/ CO2 Sequestration/ (WAG) Process

1. Presenter :Enas Rajeh Al-Jamal
Supervisor :Ir. Bonavian Hasiholan
Examiner: Mr. A.M.Y. Sami
VoidageReplacement And ProductionBalancingStrategy To OptimizeThe
IncrementalOil RecoveryAnd CO2 SequestrationIn sandStoneReservoir
4/8/2019 1

2. Presentation Outline
OBJECTIVES
INTRODUCTION
PROBLEM STATEMENT
LITERATURE REVIEW
METHADOLOGY
RESULT
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
4/8/2019 2

3. OBJECTIVES
1-Create a geological model of sandstone reservoir fromscratch.
2-Toinvestigate the macroscopic & microscopic sweep efficiency between
voidage replacementand production balancing.
3-Tooptimize the incremental oil recoveryand CO2 sequestrationin a sandstone
reservoir.
OBJECTIVES
4/8/2019 3

4. INTRODUCTION
4/8/2019 4

5. Voidage Replacement Ratio
(VRR)
It’s the pressure maintenance.
When replacing the volume of oil, gas, and water produced from the
reservoir by injected fluids.
INTRODUCTION
4/8/2019 5

6. Production Balancing
strategy
Injected fluid Volume in equals to produced volume
out.
INTRODUCTION
4/8/2019
6

7. CO2 Sequestration
It’s the storage of CO2 into long-term storage to prevent the
environmental effect from the emission of CO2.
INTRODUCTION
4/8/2019 7

8. (WAG) Process
Water Alternating Gas process is a form of tertiary recovery applied
by the injection of Gas and Water Alternatively.
INTRODUCTION
4/8/2019 8

9. Problem statement
Problem statement
4/8/2019 9
1. Global warming caused by CO2 emission.
2. Severe decline in reservoir pressure during production.
3. Poor sweep efficiency by conventional recovery methods.
4. progressive shortage of the world petroleum reserves.

10. LITERATURE REVIEW
4/8/2019 10

11. LITERATURE REVIEW
LITERATURE REVIEW
4/8/2019 11
No Author Title & Publisher
1 Jr. Robert,
Ludoophlen
Voidage replacement ratio calculations in retrograde
condensate to volatile oil reservoirs undergoing EOR
processes (SPE)
2 Vicente, M ;
Crosta, D
Determination of Volumetric Sweep Efficiency in Barrancas
Unit, Barrancas Field. (SPE)
3 Touray, Saikou EFFECT OF WATER ALTERNATING GAS INJECTION ON
ULTIMATE OIL. (Dalhousie University)
4 jackson, d d;
Andrews, G L;
Claridge, L E
optimum WAG ratio vs. Rock wettability in CO2 flooding
(SPE)

12. LITERATURE REVIEW
LITERATURE REVIEW
4/8/2019 12
No Author Title & Publisher
5 Romero-Zerón,
Laura
Advances in Enhanced Oil Recovery Processes. (SPE)
6 Tosun, I. (2013) Solubility of Gases in Liquids
7 Shiralkar, G. S.,
& Stephenson, R.
E.
Predictable control of reservoir pressure through voidage
replacement

13. Factors Affecting WAG Process
LITERATURE REVIEW
a) Fluid characteristics and rock-fluid interaction
b) Reservoir stratification and heterogeneity
c) WAG ratio
d) WAG cycle time
e) WAG injection patterns
f) Pressure rates for production & injection wells
4/8/2019 13

14. Microscopic & Macroscopic Sweep
efficiencies
-Volumetric sweep better by water >> Macroscopic .
-Displacement sweep better by gas >> Microscopic .
LITERATURE REVIEW
4/8/2019 14

15. METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 15

16. METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 16
Tools and Materials
1. Schlumberger Eclipse
E300 software.
2. Schlumberger petrel
software.

17. Reservoir-E Description
METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 17
1. Reservoir dimensions as simulation model:
2. 21: no of columns in the X-direction
3. 19: no of rows in the Y-direction
4. 14: no of geological layers in the Z-direction

18. Reservoir-E Description
METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 18
Item Description
8000 Datum depth of the reservoir (feet)
2500 Initial datum pressure (psi) at the datum depth
9600 The depth of oil-water contact (feet)
0.42 Initial oil saturation
0.57 Initial water saturation

19. Reservoir-E Initial Volume
METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 19
Phase Original in place (OIP)
Oil (MM STB) 3738
Water (MM STB) 5121
Volatile Oil

20. Permeability Map in X Direction
METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 20
Average permeability 249 mD

21. Permeability Map in Y Direction
METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 21

22. Permeability Map in Z Direction
METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 22
Permeability (Lower 16.4- Higher 42.7)mD

23. Reservoir-E Porosity Map
METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 23
Average porosity 0.27

24. Reservoir-E BASE CASE
METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 24
The reservoir was operated with:
I. 3 Exploration wells.
II.No water and gas injection applied.

25. Oil Recovery Plans
Primary
plan
WAG plan
VRR &
PRBL
• Scenario-1
• Scenario-2
• Scenario-3
Best
scenario
• Scenario-5
• Scenario-4
• Scenario-3
• Scenario-2
• Scenario-1
Best
scenario • With ratio 0.8
• With ratio 0.9
• With ratio 1.0
• With ratio 1.1
• With ratio 1.2
Best
scenario
Primary plan
Secondary plan
VRR & PRBL
Using ECLIPSE software:
25
4/8/2019
METHODOLOGY
• CO2 Low Solubility.
• CO2 Optimum Solubility
• CO2 High Solubility.
Co2 Storage
CO2
Storage
Best
scenario

26. METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 26
Voidage Replacement Simulation Code
VREP is a group control mode in well injection codes.

27. METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 27
Production Balancing Simulation Code
PRBL is a group control mode in well production codes.

28. METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 28
CO2 Sequestration Code
CO2SOL is added under RUNSPEC ECLIPSE section together
with DISGAS.
CO2 properties are added under PROPS ECLIPSE section.

29. METHODOLOGY
4/8/2019 29
Economic Analysis Excel Sheet

30. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 30

31. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 31
BASE-CASE RECOVERY
Oil/Gas (Rates and Totals)

32. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 32
BASE-CASE RECOVERY
Water Rate and Total

33. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 33
BASE-CASE RECOVERY
Recovery Factor 10.8%
Stage
Fluid prod
Base case
FOPT (MM STB) 126
FGPT (MM. MSCF) 329
FWPT (MM STB) 323
FWIT (MM STB) -
FGIT (MM-MSCF) -

34. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 34
PRIMAR RECOVERY (Scenario-1)
• 5 Production wells with 9000 STB/D Oil flow rate and 750 psi BHP.
•

35. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 35
PRIMAR RECOVERY (Scenario-2)
• New 5 Production wells with 9000 STB/D Oil flow rate and 750 psi BHP.
•

36. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 36
PRIMAR RECOVERY (Scenario-3)
• New 6 Production wells with 9000 STB/D Oil flow rate and 750 psi BHP.
• Perforation was controlled through geological layers.
•

37. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 37
SUMMARYOF PRIMARY RECOVERY PLAN
RF scenario-1 (21.5% ), scenario-2 (30.6%) and scenario-3 (33.8% ).
Stage
FLUID PROD
Primary recovery
Scenario Scenario-1 Scenario-2 Scenario-3
FOPT ( MM STB) 651 924 1023
FGPT (MM. MSCF) 242 326 359
FWPT (MM STB) 0.63 9.39 30
FWIT (MM STB) - - -
FGIT (MM STB) - - -

38. Waterflooding was conducted through:
1. Scenario-1 with 3 WAG injection wells.
2. Scenario-2 with 5 WAG injection wells.
3. Scenario-3 with 9 WAG injection wells of cycle time of 365 day.
4. Scenario-4 with 9 WAG injection wells of cycle time of 180 day.
5. Scenario-5 with 9 WAG injection wells of cycle time of 280 day.
38
4/8/2019
RESULT &
DISCUSSION
Secondary (WAG) Plan

39. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 39
Secondary Recovery (Scenario-1)

40. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 40
Secondary Recovery (Scenario-1)
Gas and water injection rates

41. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 41
Secondary Recovery (Scenario-2)

42. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 42
Secondary Recovery (Scenario-2)
Gas and water injection totals

43. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 43
Secondary Recovery (Scenario-3)

44. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 44
Secondary Recovery (Scenario-3)
Gas and water injection totals

45. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 45
Secondary Recovery (Scenario-4 & Scenario-5 )
Scenario-4
Scenario-5

46. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 46
SUMMARY OF SECONDARY RECOVERY PLAN
RF scenario-1(43.1%), scenario-2 (48.3%), scenario-3(56.9%), scenario-4 (56.4%) and scenario-5(56.7%).
Stage
FLUID PROD
Secondary recovery
Scenario Scenario-1 Scenario-2 Scenario-3 Scenario-4 Scenario-5
FOPT ( MM STB) 1244 1388 1608 1601 1605
FGPT (MM. MSCF) 845 119 171 170.0 170.2
FWPT (MM STB) 141 318 752 743 744
FWIT (MM STB) 492 821 1478 1506 1501
FGIT (MM STB) 511 852 1534 1506 1512

47. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 47
Voidage Replacement Strategy
Scenarios based on VREP ratio (0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2)

48. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 48
Voidage Replacement Strategy
Scenarios based on VREP ratio (0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2)
Water Produced Gas produced

49. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 49
Voidage Replacement Strategy
Scenarios based on VREP ratio (0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2)

50. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 50
Voidage Replacement Strategy
Scenarios based on VREP ratio (0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2)
VRR RATIO FOPTSTB FGPT MSCF FWPT STB FPR PSIA FOE%
0.8 1.67*10^9 2.41*10^9 7.48*10^8 993.89136 58.48%
0.9 1.68*10^9 2.42*10^9 7.84*10^8 986.11871 59.32%
1 1.72*10^9 2.42*10^9 8.22*10^8 991.54462 59.59%
1.1 1.70*10^9 2.43*10^9 8.63*10^8 990.77264 60.10%
1.2 1.73*10^9 2.44*10^9 9.07*10^8 989.10223 60.68%

51. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 51
Production Balancing Strategy
Scenarios based on PRBL ratio (0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2)

52. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 52
Production Balancing Strategy
Scenarios based on PRBL ratio (0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2)
Water Produced Gas produced

53. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 53
Production Balancing Strategy
Scenarios based on PRBL ratio (0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2)

54. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 54
Production Balancing Strategy
Scenarios based on PRBL ratio (0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2)
PRBL RATIO FOPT STB FGPT MSCF FWPT STB FPR PSIA FOE %
0.8 1.508*10^9 1.260*10^9 3.526*10^8 9004.6543 53.2%
0.9 1.6333*10^9 1.578*10^9 3.894*10^8 5165.5112 57.5%
1 1.741*10^9 1.743*10^9 5.076*10^8 3170.0959 61.2%
1.1 1.763*10^9 1.935*10^9 5.666*10^8 2402.0955 61.9%
1.2 1.772*10^9 2.075*10^9 6.220*10^8 1944.8895 62.2%

55. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 55
Comparison between Voidage Replacement Ratio (1.2)
and Production Balancing (1.2)

56. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 56
Comparison between Voidage Replacement Ratio
and Production Balancing
VRR PRBL

57. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 57
Comparison between Voidage Replacement Ratio (1.2)
and Production Balancing (1.2)
STRATEGY FOE FOPT FWPT
Voidage Replacement
strategy(1.2)
60.68% 1.73*10^9 9.07*10^8
Production Balancing strategy
(1.2)
62.21% 1.77*10^9 6.23*10^8

58. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 58
OVERALLSWEEPEFFICIENCY DETERMINATION
VRR PRBL

59. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 59
CO2 SEQUESTRATION
Solubility scenarios (Low, Optimum, High)
STRATEGY
ProductionBalancingstrategy
(PRBL)
Voidage
Replacement
strategy
Solubility of CO2 LOW LOW
FOE 64.28% 63.12%
FGIT (MSCF) 3.154*10^13 3.663*10^13
FGPT(MSCF) 2.035*10^13 2.968*10^13
CO2 stored(MSCF) 1.118*10^13 6.947*10^12
STRATEGY
ProductionBalancing
strategy (PRBL)
Voidage
Replacement
strategy
Solubility of CO2 OPTIMUM OPTIMUM
FOE 63.88% 62.64%
FGIT(MSCF) 3.282*10^13 3.683*10^13
FGPT(MSCF)
1.991*10^13 2.807*10^13
CO2 stored(MSCF) 1.291*10^13 8.763*10^12

60. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 60
CO2 SEQUESTRATION
Solubility scenarios (Low, Optimum, High)
STRATEGY
Production Balancing strategy
(PRBL)
Voidage Replacement strategy
Solubility of CO2 HIGH HIGH
FOE 62.64% 61.98%
FGIT 3.578*10^13 3.566*10^13
FGPT 2.088*10^13 2.455*10^13
CO2 stored 1.490*10^13 1.110*10^13

61. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 61
VRR(1.2) Before & After CO2 SEQUESTRATION

62. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 62
PRBL(1.2) Before & After CO2 SEQUESTRATION

63. RESULT &
DISCUSSION
4/8/2019 63
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Net Profit Value of Recovery Plans
Production stage
Net profit value ( NPV)
(Billion.USD)
Base case $18.3
Primary best scenario-3 $43.9
Secondary best scenario-3 $78.9
Viodage replacement best
scenario-3
$80.6
Production balancing scenario-
3
$81.4
NPV was increased
by 63.1 Billion USD$
recovery plans over
the base case
recovery.

64. CONCLUSION
4/8/2019 64

65. CONCLUSION
4/8/2019 65
Research Conclusion
RF was increased from 10.8% to 62.64% (PRBL 1.2).
VRR of 1.2 increases FOE but results in an early water cut.
PRBL results in higher FOE due to late water cut.
PRBL maintains the reservoir pressure more than VRR.
Sweep efficiency was enhanced macroscopically and
microscopically in a better way in PRBL than VRR.
CO2 solubility is proportional to the pressure of injection.
Higher CO2 solubility results in higher CO2 sequestration.
NPV was increased from 18.3 billion USD$ to 81.4 billion USD$.

66. CONCLUSION
4/8/2019 66
Recommendation
Frequently use CO2 as injected fluid in WAG to decrease its
emission.
Use production balancing strategy rather than voidage
replacement.
Avoid using CO2STORE simulation method in a reservoir
containing hydrocarbon.
Research about methods to prevent the leakage of CO2 during
sequestration.

67. THANK
YOU ANY QUESTION?
4/8/2019 67

68. BACKUP SLIDES
4/8/2019 68

69. Price and Cost of Field Activities
 Capital investment and operation costs
INVESTMENTITEM COST(USD$)
Monthly field operation 200,0000
Vertical well 1,000,000
Horizontal well 3,000,000
Water injection well setup 500,000
Gas injection well setup 1,000,000
WAG injection well setup 2,000,000
Injected water 1.0 per STB
Injected Carbon Dioxide 4.0 per MSCF
Water production 5.0 per STB
INCOME SALEPRICE (USD$)
Oil 60 per STB
Gas 4.0 per MSCF
69
 Sale price of oil and gas produced
8/25/2015