Application of Decline Curve Analysis to Estimate Recovery Factors for Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Application of Decline Curve Analysis To Estimate Recovery Factors for Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery By Hossein Jahediesfanjani Chapter C of Three Approaches for Estimating Recovery Factors in Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery Mahendra K. Verma, Editor Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5062–C U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Jahediesfanjani, Hossein, 2017, Application of decline curve analysis to estimate recovery factors for carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery, chap. C of Verma, M.K., ed., Three approaches for estimating recovery factors in carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5062, p. C1–C20, https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175062C. ISSN 2328-0328 (online) iii Contents Background..................................................................................................................................................C1 Basis for Decline Curve Analysis ................................................................................................................1 Case Study ......................................................................................................................................................2 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................5 References Cited............................................................................................................................................5 Appendix C1. Decline Curve Analysis of Selected Reservoirs ...........................................................9 Figures C1. Semi-log plot of the oil production rate versus the oil production time for the San Andres Limestone in the Sable oil field in the west Texas section of the Permian Basin Province, showing the decline trends for both the waterflood and the carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) phases .........................................................................................................C3 C2. Graph of the oil production rate versus the cumulative oil production for the San Andres Limestone in the Sable oil field, Texas, showing the decline trends for both the waterflood and the carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) phases ......................................................................................4 C3. Bar graph showing the number of studied reservoirs having values of additional oil recovery factors due to carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) in five different ranges ...............................................................4 C1–1 to C1–15. Graphs of the oil production rate versus the cumulative oil production showing the decline trends for both the waterflood and the carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) phases for the— C1–1. San Andres Limestone in the Sable oil field, Texas .................................13 C1–2. Weber Sandstone in the Rangely oil field, Colorado ...............................14 C1–3. Tensleep Formation in the Lost Soldier oil field, Wyoming ....................14 C1–4. Madison Formation in the Lost Soldier oil field, Wyoming .....................15 C1–5. San Andres Limestone in the Wasson oil field, Texas ............................15 C1–6. Clear Fork Group in the Wasson oil field, Texas.......................................16 C1–7. Thirtyone Formation in the Dollarhide oil field, Texas .............................16 C1–8. Clear Fork Group in the Dollarhide oil field, Texas ...................................17 C1–9. “Canyon-age reservoir” in the Salt Creek oil field, Texas ......................17 C1–10. San Andres Limestone in the Seminole oil field, Texas ..........................18 C1–11. Sandstone of the Ramsey Member of the Bell Canyon Formation in the Twofreds oil field, Texas .................................................18 C1–12. San Andres Limestone in the Vacuum oil field, New Mexico ................19 C1–13. San Andres Limestone in the Cedar Lake oil field, Texas .......................19 C1–14. San Andres Limestone in the North Hobbs oil field, New Mexico ...................................................................................................20 C1–15. San Andres Limestone in the Yates oil field, Texas .................................20 iv Tables C1. Best match values of the initial oil production rate, the initial decline rate for oil production, and the corresponding coefficient of determination (R2) values for both waterflood and carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) decline periods of the studied reservoirs ..............................................................................C6 C2. Additional oil recovery factors estimated by using decline curve analysis for carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) projects in 15 selected reservoirs .......................................................................................................................................7 Chapter C. Application of Decline Curve Analysis To Estimate Recovery Factors for Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery By Hossein Jahediesfanjani1 1 − Background q b =+()1 bDi t (C1) qi In the decline curve analysis (DCA) method of estimating where recoverable hydrocarbon volumes, the analyst uses historical production data from a well, lease, group of wells (or pattern), q is the time-dependent oil production rate,r or reservoir and plots production rates against time or cumu- in barrels per day (bbl/day); lative production for the analysis. The DCA of an individual qi is the initial oil prroduction rate, in barrels well is founded on the same basis as the fluid-flow principles per day; that are used for pressure-transient analysis of a single well in a reservoir domain (Fetkovich, 1987; Fetkovich and others, Di is the initial declinne rate per year; 1987) and therefore can provide scientifically reasonable and b represents the degree of curvature of thhe accurate results. However, when used for a group of wells, a shape of the decline trend, lease, or a reservoir, the DCA becomes more of an empirical which is dimensionless; andd method. Plots from the DCA reflect the reservoir response to the oil withdrawal (or production) under the prevailing t is the oil production time, in years. operating and reservoir conditions, and they continue to be Theoretically, the parameters, such as qi , Di , and b, have good tools for estimating recoverable hydrocarbon volumes defined meanings only if equation C1 is applied for a single and future production rates. For predicting the total recov- well that produces from a single reservoir under appropri- erable hydrocarbon volume, the DCA results can help the ate fluid-flow conditions. However, if equation C1 is applied analyst to evaluate the reservoir performance under any of the to larger entities such as a number of wells, a reservoir, or a three phases of reservoir productive life—primary, secondary field, these parameters are only empirical and are obtained by (waterflood), or tertiary (enhanced oil recovery) phases—so a curve-fitting process. Practically, this equation represents long as the historical production data are sufficient to establish three different types of declines depending on the value of b; decline trends at the end of the three phases. namely, an exponential decline for b = 0, a hyperbolic decline for b > 0 and b < 1, and a harmonic decline for b = 1. On the basis of the explanations above and for the sake of simplicity, Basis for Decline Curve Analysis in many of the industrial applications of evaluating reservoir oil production decline, the value of b is often assumed to be The DCA method is used to predict the future oil pro- zero, and, hence, equation C1 takes the form: duction rate of an oil-producing well or reservoir. Theoreti- cally, according to this method, the oil production rate for qq=−iiexp(Dt ) (C2) a given entity will first reach its maximum output and then decline according to the following generalized relationship (Fetkovich, 1987): 1Lynxnet LLC, under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey. C2 Three Approaches for Estimating Recovery Factors in Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery Equation C2 is rewritten in terms of cumulative oil pro- For a technically recoverable hydrocarbon volume, desig- duction in the following form: nated as Qmax , the recovery factor (RF) under current produc- tion conditions is estimated from the following: ()qq− Q = i (C3) Q (C8) Di RF =×max 100 where OOIP Q is the cumulative oil production, in barrells. where These two equations, C2 and C3, were used for the analy- Qmax is the maximum cumulative oil sis