Reservoir Modelling and Simulation

May Semester 2017

Eclipse Case Study

submit to Dr Mohammed Abdalla Ayoub Mohammed

by

Name ID

Lim Wan Ern (Esther) 21016

Heng Jun Hao 20705

Farah Dayana Binti Roslan 21098

Sharvinash Muthukumaravelu 20873

Pavithra Nermoggan 21489

Nur Fatin 'Izzati Bte Hj Abdull Rahim 22326

 Table of Contents

ECLIPSE RMS Project Introduction....3

CASE 2A | High Permeability in Middle Layer.....4

CASE 2B | High Permeability in Bottom Layer.....6

CASE 2C | High Permeability in Top Layer...8

CO2- EOR Proposal....10

Economic Analysis..11
Tutorial Graphs (Part 1)..13

2
 Eclipse RMS Project

Reservoir Simulators have been great decision makers whether or not to continue developing
a field or to abandon it. They are able to simulate under different operating conditions to ensure
that the closest, most accurate condition to the actual reservoir are being predicted. Then
different developing strategies will be worked upon. The numerical model represents
discretized cells in finite quantities to simulate a continuous reservoir. One of the most
prominent softwares used will be ECLIPSE from Schlumberger.

ECLIPSE 100, previously known as ECLIPSE Black Oil has been used for the purpose of this
project. All under this course have underwent an intensive training of two days to equip us with
the knowledge to be utilized to simulate simple cases. We have practiced with the tutorial
questions provided. As proof, theyre attached along end at the end of this report. Using the
basic structure of the ECLIPSE coding (with comments included whenever possible), namely:

i. High Permeability in Bottom Layer

ii. High Permeability in Middle Layer
iii. High Permeability in Top Layer

Each case will be explained in detail with sufficient theory for understanding. Graphics from
the simulator and graphs are attached with limitations. The Eclipse EOR license was found
invalid, this matter was discovered and confirmed amongst our course mates. Attached here
would be the relative permeability data we used in our simulations. Theres two tables for each
permeability of 1000mD (Table 1) and 200mD (Table 2).

Table 1, k =1000mD: Table 2, k =200mD:

3
Case 2A | High Permeability in Middle Layer

The integrated figure above shows how the middle layer is 1000mD while the top and bottom layer remains 200 mD. The models shown on the
right would be the middle time step (top right) and the final time step (bottom right).

4
The above graph shows how Field Oil Efficiency is low due to how oil flows slower than water. Over a certain production time, there will be an
inconsistent flow pattern where the water fills the middle layer and there is residual oil at the bottom. Production will be effective in the strip of
high permeability. This does not promote the effective production of oil.

5
Case 2B | High Permeability in Bottom Layer

The integrated figure above would be an excerpt from the coding we used to simulate highest permeability for the bottom layer, 1000 mD as
compared to the 200 mD in Layer 1 and Layer 2.and the simulation from the middle time step (right top) and the final time step (right bottom)

6
This graph shows a comparison between Case 2A (High k in middle layer) and Case 2B (High k in bottom layer). Case 2B is found to have
relatively good oil recovery efficiency because theres a higher production at the end (Notice Field Oil Efficiency, FOE) . Displacement of oil by
water is not significantly affected due to density differences, the lower layer of reservoir will be naturally occupied and effective in pushing the
bottom portion and middle-bottom portion of the reservoir. Oil in the top layer opposes the movement in the bottom layers due to gravitational
forces.

7
Case 2C | High Permeability in Top Layer

The integrated figure above presents the highest permeability in the top layer. The oil saturations are the least at the end of the time step, this means
we have produced most of the oil from the reservoir. Due to gravitational force and density effects where oil is less dense than water, the oil will
be swept up and separated later from water for production. It aims to achieve less water cut too.

8
Based on the graph above, we will conclude: Case 2C > Case 2A> Case 2B

Thus, Case 2C has been chosen to be an EOR candidate. This is entirely evaluated by the oil that has been recovered throughout the simulation
process. Water cut is the highest in Case 2B which means it has the highest water production when the permeability is high in the bottom layer.

9
CO2-EOR

This technique is normally used after water flooding, carbon dioxide flooding will be
considered a good tertiary method to continue the efforts of previous drive mechanisms. We
have chosen this method due to the high water cut (normally a result of previous water
flooding). A similar field study was conducted at Wilmington, California in 1984.

It would be advisable to simulate this in an extended black oil simulator than a compositional
simulator in this case. Due to the strip of high permeability on the top layer, flooding in
carbon dioxide will aid the movement of the remaining oil inside by making it less dense than
before and flush the residual oil out.

Some factors to consider and to be concerned of while doing so includes: channelling (due to
possible permeability variation), viscosity issues (occurrence of viscous fingering) or maybe
diffusion and flooding rate. Notice that miscible flooding will also cause unstable frontal
advancement due to the multiphase fluids involved.

Economic Analysis

The analysis done here would be brief due to possibly incomplete information and rough
estimation due to the few situations listed above. Firstly, allow us to list down a few incurred
if such a plan were to be carried out:

No. Description Cost/ $ mil

1. Drilling and completing new wells/ Transform producers into injectors 32

2. Leasing equipments for new injection wells 20

3. Annual Operations & Maintenance (O&M) 2.8

4. CO2-EOR Recycle Plant Investment 60

TOTAL 114.8

Considering that its $47 per barrel of oil produced today, attached below will be a rough
draft of the overall profit in 10 years. Assuming limitations of GOR, Water Cut and Pressure
decline is okay.

10
The economics of this given field have been calculated by Microsoft Excel Sheet with
formulas embedded inside.

Item Value Unit

Price of Oil 47 USD/bbl
Price of Gas 3.3 USD/gal
Production Well 20 mil USD
# Production Well 22 wells
Inflation 5 %

Income Tax 20 %

Royalty 5 %

Well abandonment 2 mil USD

Platform abandonment 10 mil USD
Injection Well 32 mil USD
Flaring of Gas 100 kUSD/mmscf
Platform Cost 300 mil USD
% of
0.04
Opex CAPEX/yr
FOTP
(Cumulative 250000000 STB
Production)

The following table shows the general details regarding this will that will equate to a better
profit than just allowing the pressure decline to continue without introduction a secondary
then tertiary drive.

11
Production Inflation Gross Revenue Net Present CAPEX= OPEX= Profit
Years Rate (FOTP *60USD*75%) Value (Well*Quantity + N*0.04*CAPEX
(G.Rev / Platform*Quantity (Last Row=
Inflation) + N*0.04*CAPEX +
other CO2-EOR Well
Prep) abandonment)

0 $0.00 $0.00 $740,000,000.00 $0.00 -$740,000,000.00

1 1 $1,125,000,000.00 $1,125,000,000.00 $0.00 $29,600,000.00 $1,095,400,000.00
2 1.05 $1,125,000,000.00 $1,071,428,571.43 $0.00 $29,600,000.00 $1,041,828,571.43
3 1.1025 $1,125,000,000.00 $1,020,408,163.27 $0.00 $29,600,000.00 $990,808,163.27
4 1.157625 $1,125,000,000.00 $971,817,298.35 $0.00 $29,600,000.00 $942,217,298.35
5 1.21550625 $1,125,000,000.00 $925,540,284.14 $0.00 $29,600,000.00 $895,940,284.14
6 1.276281563 $1,125,000,000.00 $881,466,937.28 $0.00 $29,600,000.00 $851,866,937.28
7 1.340095641 $1,125,000,000.00 $839,492,321.22 $0.00 $29,600,000.00 $809,892,321.22
8 1.407100423 $1,125,000,000.00 $799,516,496.40 $0.00 $29,600,000.00 $769,916,496.40
9 1.477455444 $1,125,000,000.00 $761,444,282.28 $0.00 $29,600,000.00 $731,844,282.28
10 1.551328216 $1,125,000,000.00 $725,185,030.75 $0.00 $39,600,000.00 $685,585,030.75
Total Profit= $8,075,299,385.10

Altogether the table above shows you the profit, advancements and expenses obtained from the CO2-EOR project weve decided on.

12
Tutorial

TUT1A

Figure 1 : BHP of both wells (WBHP) vs. time and the field average pressure (FPR) vs. time

Figure 2 : Water cut (WWCT) of the well PROD and the field oil production rate (FOPR) vs. time

13
 Figure 3 : BHP values for the first 10 days in the range 3,500 psia to 5,500 psia

TUT1B

Figure 4: both well bottom hole pressures and field average pressure vs. time, Pressures in the range
3,700 psia to 5,100 psia

14
 Figure 5: Field water cut and field volume production rate vs. time

TUT1C

Figure 6: Long-term behaviour (0-2000 days)

15
Figure 7 : Short-term behaviour (0-10 days)

Figure 8: Result from the mobility effects

16
Figure 9 : Impact of total flow rate

Figure 10 : Impact of density

17
TUT1D

Figure 11 : Impact of porosity

Figure 12 : Impact of Net To Gross

18
 Figure
13 : Introduction of WOC

19
 References

Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Case Studies. (n.d.). Retrieved August 8, 2017, from
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=oyqRxuf5RskC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=EOR%2
BSolutions%2Bto%2Bfor%2Btop%2Blayer%2Bhigh%2Bpermeability%2Breservoir&source
=bl&ots=w88SP7py6Y&sig=DtyNvTewD6cRozjDtzaopUMgpyA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc
=y#v=onepage&q=EOR%20Solutions%20to%20for%20top%20layer%20high%20permeabil
ity%20reservoir&f=false

Summary of Costs for CO2 -EOR. (n.d.). Retrieved August 07,

2017, from https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global -
technology-roadmap-ccs-industry-sectoral-assessment -co2-enhanced-
oil-recovery-10

20