Summary
Air-injection-based recovery processes are receiving increased interest
because of their high recovery potentials and applicability to a wide range of
reservoirs. However, most operators require a certain level of confidence in
the potential recovery from these (or any) processes before committing
resources, which can be achieved with the use of numerical reservoir
simulation.
In a previous paper, (Gutiérrez et al. 2009) it was proposed that after
successful laboratory testing, analytical calculations and semiquantitative
simulation models would be used for pilot design and further optimization of
the actual operation. However, the specific steps for building the
field-scale-simulation models were not addressed explicitly. This paper
discusses a detailed workflow that can be followed to engineer an air-injection
project using thermal reservoir simulation.
The first step of the simulation study involves the selection of a kinetic
model that either can be developed specifically for the reservoir in question
or taken from public literature. Second, the oil would be characterized in
terms of the same pseudocomponents employed by the kinetic model, and relevant
pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) data would be matched to develop a fluid
model for the thermal simulator. This new fluid model is used in the
field-scale-simulation model to history match the production history (i.e.,
before air injection) of the field. Third, relevant combustion-tube tests would
be history matched to validate the kinetic model and refine the thermal data
that would be entered into the field-scale model. Finally, the results and
knowledge gained from the combustion-tube match(es) are applied to the
field-scale model with the proper upscaling of some parameters. This simulation
model would aid in selecting optimum well locations and operating strategies of
the pilot. It would then be refined as the actual operation progresses to
enhance its predictability and allow further optimization of the project.
Technical considerations, advantages, and limitations of each step of the
workflow are discussed in detail. This paper also presents workflow variations
and recommendations applicable to new and already-mature air-injection projects
for which simulation models are being developed.
© 2012. Society of Petroleum Engineers
View full textPDF
(
1,229 KB
)
History
- Original manuscript received:
15 August 2011
- Meeting paper published:
16 November 2011
- Revised manuscript received:
1 January 2012
- Manuscript approved:
8 March 2012
- Published online:
7 June 2012
- Version of record:
1 July 2012
View Cart
