Improved Recovery Techniques

Tracer Application for Water flooding

PE 4543 900

Submitted to:
Dr. Deepak Devegowda

February 27, 2013

LEMMY OSHENYE

Academic Integrity Statement

On my honor, I affirm that I have neither given nor received inappropriate aid in the completion of
this exercise.
Lemmy
February 27,
Name: _________________________________
Date: ____________________________
Oshenye
2013

Page 2 of 15
Abstract
As production from oil reservoirs matures, improving the recovery factor will play a decisive role in
offsetting the decline in production. Many methods exist to improve the recovery factor. In this project,
waterflooding and tracer test were simulated for an inverse 5-spot and 9-spot scenarios. Significant
findings include:
1. The field-wide average oil saturation for the 5-spot waterflood and 9-spot waterflood at fieldwide water cut of 0.95 based on numerical solution are 0.38 and 0.469 respectively.
2. The residual oil saturation for the path of each producing wells for the 5-spot waterflood and 9spot waterflood based on the tracer method are 0.284, 0.248, 0.254, and 0.253 for producing
wells P1, P2, P3, and P4 and 0.324, 0.348, 0.310, 0.377, 0.352, 0.286, 0.337, and 0.294 for
producing wells P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7 and P8 respectively. The tracer method helps to
estimate changes in the residual oil saturations following each process.
3. The 5-spot waterflood is more effective in recovering the mobile oil in the field
4. The 5-spot waterflood is able to recover a little bit more tracers compared to the 9-spot
waterflood

Page 3 of 15
Introduction
Recovering oil from a petroleum reservoir can be achieved by primary recovery, secondary recovery and
tertiary recovery. Waterflooding is the most common method of secondary recovery. Waterflooding is the
use of water injection to increase the production from oil reservoirs. This is accomplished by the injection
of water to increase the reservoir pressure to its initial pressure and maintain it near that pressure (Warner
Jr. 2007). Waterflood recovery factor is also influenced by intrinsic factors such as mobility ratio,
reservoir heterogeneity, pore geometry, and initial water-/oil-saturation distribution. Connate-water
saturation and residual oil saturation after waterflood are the most important numbers in waterflooding
because they are used to determine the displacement efficiency. Tracer tests are often implemented prior
to any improved oil recovery (IOR) process. Tracers can be used to characterize fluid migration pathways
between wells, identify the distribution and location of immobile or mobile hydrocarbon and water
phases, and assess the efficacy of an IOR pilot with before and after tests (Deepak 2012). There are two
broad categories of tracers namely conservative and partitioning tracers. Conservative tracers are soluble
in one phase and aids in identifying reservoir connectivity and barriers while partitioning tracers are
soluble in more than one phase and used to identify phase saturations. During a tracer test, the partitioning
tracer is usually delayed due to the oil phase. The delay of the partitioning tracer in comparison to the
conservative tracer enables quantification of phase saturations and has been successfully used to infer
immobile oil saturations (Deepak 2012).
Procedure
A constructed simulation model is provided with an inverse 5-spot waterflood and 9-spot waterflood. For
the 5-spot waterflood, the existing injection and production wells were operated using production controls
of 100 bbl/day until water breakthrough occurred at the first two wells. At this time, the production in
both these wells were choked back to 40 bb/day and the production in the remaining producers were
increased to 160 bbl/day. Production was continued until the field-wide water cut became 0.95 and then
the field-wide average oil saturation was estimated. A partitioning and conservative tracer was injected
continuing the waterflood and producing all four producing wells at a rate constraint of 100 bbl/day.
Injection was continued until the tracers were recovered at each of the four producing wells.
For the 9-spot waterflood, four new wells were added to the 5-spot waterflood at the edges of the field at
300 days. At this time, the existing producers were shut-in and water injection was initiated at the same
rate of 400 bbl/day while producing the four new wells at a rate constraint of 100 bbl/day. Production was
continued from the new wells until a field-wide water cut of 0.95 was achieved and then the field-wide
average oil saturation was estimated. The same process for the tracers in the 5-spot waterflood was
followed for all 8 wells.

Page 4 of 15
Results and Discussion of Results

Fig. 1The field-wide water cut profile for the inverse 5-spot waterflood

Fig. 2The field-wide water cut profile the inverse 9-spot waterflood

The field-water cut for the 5-spot waterflood and 9-spot waterflood reaches 0.95 at 1125 days and 1375
days respectively.

Page 5 of 15

Fig. 3The spatial distribution and location of bypassed hydrocarbon for the inverse 5-spot waterflood

Fig. 4 The spatial distribution and location of bypassed hydrocarbon for the inverse 9-spot waterflood

There are more bypassed hydrocarbon in the inverse 9-spot waterflood compared to the inverse 5-spot
waterflood. This can be seen in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.

Page 6 of 15

Fig. 5The tracer elution profile for well P1 from the 5-spot waterflood.

Fig. 6The tracer elution profile for well P1 from the 9-spot waterflood.

Page 7 of 15
The delay of the partitioning tracer (green) in comparison to the conservative tracer (red) is longer for the
5-spot waterflood compared to the 9-spot waterflood. This can be seen in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.
TABLE 1FIELD-WIDE AVERAGE OIL SATURATION FOR BOTH SCENARIOS USING
NUMERICAL SOLUTION
Field-wide
Average Sor
5-spot Waterflood

0.38

9-spot Waterflood

0.469

TABLE 2CONSERVATIVE AND PARTITIONING TRACER RECOVERY FOR 9-SPOT WATERFLOOD

Conservative Tracer
Wells

Partitioning Tracer

Breakthrough

Tracer Recovery

days

P1

1129

25.6

P2

1129

24.6

P3

1129

P4

1129

Wells

Breakthrough

Tracer Recovery

days

P1

1129

25.6

P2

1138

24.7

24.7

P3

1138

24.6

24.9

P4

1138

24.8

TABLE 3RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION FOR 5-SPOT WATERFLOOD USING TRACER METHOD
Wells

Sor
fraction

P1

0.238

0.284

P2

0.198

0.248

P3

0.204

0.254

P4

0.204

0.253

TABLE 4CONSERVATIVE AND PARTITIONING TRACER RECOVERY FOR 9-SPOT WATERFLOOD

Conservative Tracer

Partitioning Tracer
Breakthrough

Tracer
Recovery

Breakthrough

Tracer
Recovery

days

days

P1

1440.2

15.8

P1

1386.8

16.0

P2

1381.5

3.6

P2

1381.5

3.4

P3

1386.8

14.4

P3

1386.8

14.9

P4

1431.8

7.3

P4

1386.8

7.1

P5

1376

7.2

P5

1376

6.9

P6

1376

21.2

P6

1379

21.5

P7

1376

10.9

P7

1376

10.2

P8

1376

19.4

P8

1376

19.4

Wells

Wells

Page 8 of 15

Page 9 of 15

TABLE 5RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION FOR 9-SPOT WATERFLOOD USING TRACER METHOD
Wells

Sor
fraction

P1

0.288

0.324

P2

0.320

0.348

P3

0.269

0.310

P4

0.363

0.377

P5

0.326

0.352

P6

0.240

0.286

P7

0.304

0.337

P8

0.250

0.294

The water breakthrough for the 5-spot waterflood occur at 475 days at wells P2 and
P3. This is as a result of higher permeability in that direction.
Conclusion
The 5-spot waterflood is more effective in recovering the mobile oil in the field compared to the 9-spot
waterflood.
The tracer method helps to estimate the residual oil saturation for the pathways of each
of the producing wells.
References
Devegowda, D. 2013. Tracer Tests. Lecture notes on tracer tests. The University of Oklahoma,
Oklahoma, United States.
Warner Jr., H.R. 2007. Petroleum Engineering Handbook, Vol. 5, V-1037V-1096. Richardson, Texas,
SPE.

Page 10 of 15
Appendices
Equation

S=

( +Ki)

Supplemental Tables and Figures

5-spot Waterflood
Conservative Tracer
Well
s

Peak
Time

Production
Time

Production
rate

Q/(1+)

days

days

bbl/day

bbl

P1

1601

472

100

47200

P2

1526

397

100

P3

1513.5

384.5

P4

1576

447

Tracer
Production
Total
dimensionles
s

Partitioning Coefficient
(Ki)

Field-wide Tracer
Injection Total

103.67

0.6

404.49

39700

99.59

0.6

404.49

100

38450

100.04

0.6

404.49

100

44700

100.76

0.6

404.49

Partitioning Coefficient
(Ki)

Field-wide Tracer
Injection Total

0.6

404.49

0.6

404.49

0.6

404.49

0.6

404.49

Partitioning Tracer
Well
s

Peak
Time

Production
Time

Production
rate

days

days

bbl/day

bbl

P1

1713.5

584.5

P2

1613.5

475.5

P3

1601

463

P4

1676

538

Tracer
Production
Total
dimensionles
s

100

58450

103.47

100

47550

99.73

100

46300

99.67

100

53800

100.39

Page 11 of 15

Fig. 7The tracer elution profile for well P4 from the 5-spot waterflood.

9-spot Waterflood
Conservative Tracer
Peak
Time

Production
Time

Production
rate

Q/(1+)

Tracer
Production
Total

days

days

bbl/day

bbl

dimensionless

P1

1863.6

476.8

P2

2513.5

1132

P3

1851

464.2

P4

2313.5

881.7

P5

1951

575

P6

1676

300

P7

1663.5

287.5

P8

1576

200

Wells

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

47680
113200
46420
88170
57500
30000
28750
20000

63.78
14.44
58.41
29.34
28.98
85.72
44.25
78.41

Partitioning Coefficient
(Ki)

Field-wide Tracer
Injection Total

0.6

404.64

0.6

404.64

0.6

404.64

0.6

404.64

0.6

404.64

0.6

404.64

0.6

404.64

0.6

404.64

Page 12 of 15
Partitioning Tracer
Peak
Time

Production
Time

Production
rate

Tracer Prod
Total

Partitioning Coefficient
(Ki)

Field-wide Tracer Inj

Total

days

days

bbl/day

bbl

dimensionless

P1

2001

614.2

100

61420

64.62

0.6

404.64

P2

2876

1494.5

100

149450

13.63

0.6

404.64

P3

1976

589.2

100

58920

60.48

0.6

404.64

P4

2588.5

1201.7

100

120170

28.73

0.6

404.64

P5

2138.5

762.5

100

76250

27.88

0.6

404.64

P6

1751

372

100

37200

87.14

0.6

404.64

P7

1751

375

100

37500

41.28

0.6

404.64

P8

1626

250

100

25000

78.54

0.6

404.64

Wells

Fig. 8The tracer elution profile for well P3 from the 9-spot waterflood.

Page 13 of 15

Fig. 9The tracer elution profile for well P4 from the 9-spot waterflood.

Fig. 10The tracer elution profile for well P5 from the 9-spot waterflood.

Page 14 of 15

Fig. 11The tracer elution profile for well P6 from the 9-spot waterflood.

Fig. 12The tracer elution profile for well P7 from the 9-spot waterflood.

Page 15 of 15

Fig. 13The tracer elution profile for well P8 from the 9-spot waterflood.