Screening Technologies

3rd Annual Wyoming IOR/EOR Conference

V L A D I M I R A LVA R A D O
CHEMICAL AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
S E P T E M B E R 1 3 , 2 0 11

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

Outline
• Introduction
• Why run screening?
• Screening type
• Engineering (lookup tables)
• Data-driven (drawn from experience)
• Geological (ex: pay continuity)
• Multi-parameter projections
• Closing remarks

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

EOR Decision Making
Decisions Uncertainties Values

Oil Price Tax Conventional

CO2 Economic
Sequestration Evaluations
CAPEX

EOR Method Oil Production

Production NPV
revenue

OPEX Objective
Function
Reservoir Water
Properties Handling Costs

SF Yes High

ISC Base case NPV

SAGD No Low
Manrique et al., SPE 113269, 2008 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
Problem: Too many choices
Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG)
Water
Flooding Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer (ASP)

Natural Miscible Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG)

Gas
Depletion CO2 Sequestration
Flooding Immiscible
High Pressure Air Injection

Steamflooding
Steam In-Situ Combustion
Stimulation
Pressure Steam-Assisted-Gravity-Drainage (SAGD)
Maint.
Gas Injection
WAG IGR by late Depressurization
Water Injection

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

Screening
• “Screening guides or criteria are among the first items
considered when a petroleum engineer evaluates a
candidate reservoir for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)”1
• “The choice of enhanced oil recovery processes is
based on technical and economic data”2
• “Sophisticated and complex numerical models are used
in industry to evaluate the suitability of a reservoir for
CO2 flooding,… Thus, these methods and models are
not suitable for a regional-scale, quick initial
assessment and screening of oil pools…with respect to
suitability…” 3
1Taber& Martin, SPE 12069, 1983
2Guerillot,
SPE 17791, 1988
3Shaw & Bachu, JCPT, 2002
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
 Why run screening?
• Several methods for
feasibility
Screening Stop
• Analytical or sector model
simulations => performance
Prospective Simulations Stop
prediction
• More data serve to build
detailed models and deal Detailed Appraisal Stop
with uncertainty
• A go-ahead is given (or not)
to deploy a development plan Project Implementation
and invest resources

Goodyear & Gregory, SPE 28844, 1994 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
 Lookup tables (Yes or No, or Maybe)
• “Screening criteria are based on a combination of the reservoir and oil
characteristics of successful projects plus our understanding of the optimum
conditions needed for good oil displacement by the different EOR fluids”*
EOR Gravity Viscosity Comp. So Formation Net Thick. <K> Depth T
Method (oAPI) (cp) (% PV) Type (ft) (md) (ft) (oF)
N2 & Flue > 35↗ <0.4↘ High % > 40↗ Sandstone Thin unless NC >6,000 NC
Gas 48↗ 0.2↘ C1-C7 75↗ Carbonate Dipping
HC Gas > 23↗ <3↘ 0.5↘ High % > 30↗ Sandstone Thin unless NC >4,000 NC
41↗ C2-C7 80↗ Carbonate Dipping
CO2 > 22↗ <10↘ High % > 20↗ Sandstone Wide range NC >2,500 NC
36↗ 1.5↘ C5-C12 55↗ Carbonate
Immisc. > 12 <600 NC > 35↗ Sandstone NC if dipping NC >1,800 NC
gases 70↗ Carbonate and/or good Kv

• Similar tables are available for chemical and thermals methods.

Expert: having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or
experience
*Taber, Martin & Seright, SPEREE, 1997 (I) ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
Softening lookup tables

Comfort intervals (Ex: f)

• Each triangle represents a
comfort reference interval
• A second triangle is the
reservoir interval for each
variable
• The overlapping area
yields an index (0,1); the
closer to “1” the better

Alvarado, Thyne & Murrell, SPE 115940, 2008 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
Fuzzy lookup tables
VARIABLE MINIMUM MOST LIKELY MAXIMUM INDEX

Depth 30 2515 5000 0.760022

Thickness 3 251.5 500 0.0117616

Pressure 10 250 500 0.380952

Out[18]=

Permeability 100 2550 5000 0.496016

Viscosity 0.2 1.35 2.5 0.0636642

Temperature 0 100 200 0.35

TOTAL 0.343736

Alvarado, Thyne & Murrell, SPE 115940, 2008 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
Soft lookup tables can rank

Alvarado, Thyne & Murrell, SPE 115940, 2008 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
WY Test Cases

Alvarado, Thyne & Murrell, SPE 115940, 2008 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
 WY Test Cases
Triangle U Field • Can we use learned
30000 70 lessons?
60
25000 • Critical conditions &
Waterflooding
started
Chemical treatment
started
50
parameters?
20000
Oil rate (Bbl/month)

40

Water Cut (%)

• Can we develop
15000 30
strategies for basins?
20
10000

10
• Can we recommend
5000 objectively?
0

0 -10
Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-
76 80 84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Date

Alvarado, Thyne & Murrell, SPE 115940, 2008 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
Results for Minnelusa
Violations
70
60 Waterflooding
Frequency

50 Chemical Flooding
40
30
20
10
0 re

t
y

ty
th

ty
re

)
ss

ty

en
kh
lit

i
si
si
ep

tu

in
ne
bi

nt
v/
ss

n
o
ra

l
D

ea

Sa
de
sc
k

(k

co
e
pe
ic

Pr
vi
m

py
Th

il

y
m

O
r

la
il
Pe

ro
O
Te

C
ot
is
Parameters An

Alvarado, Thyne & Murrell, SPE 115940, 2008 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
Results for Minnelusa
40

30
Waterflooding
Frequency

Chemical Flooding

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Index

Alvarado, Thyne & Murrell, SPE 115940, 2008 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
 Expert Map: Polymer Floods Cluster 4
Method % Cluster 6
CO2 Immisc. 22.58 CO2 Immisc.
Air 12.90 Method %
Cluster 5 Water Flooding 12.90 N2 Misc. 42.86
CO2 Misc. 9.68
CO2 Misc.
Method % N2 Immisc. 21.43
Polymer 9.68
Air 41.38 WAG HC Immisc. 9.68 WAG N2 Misc. 14.29 N2 Immisc.
Steam 27.59 N2 Misc. 6.45 Water Flooding 14.29
CO2 Immisc. 10.34 WAG HC Misc. 6.45 WAG HC Misc. 7.14 N2 Misc.
N2 Immisc. 3.23
Polymer 8.62 Steam 3.23
WAG CO2 Immisc. 5.17 WAG CO2 Misc. 3.23 Polymer
Water Flooding 5.17
N2 Immisc. 1.72 Steam
WAG CO2 Immisc.
WAG HC Immisc.
WAG CO2 Misc.
WAG HC Misc.
Air
Water Flooding
Cluster 2
Method %
Water Flooding 38.46
Cluster 1
WAG CO2 Misc. 13.46
Method %
Polymer floods in Water Flooding 29.17
WAG HC Misc. 13.46
20.83 Cluster 3 N2 Misc. 9.62
shallow and low CO2 Misc.
Polymer 18.75 Method % CO2 Misc.7.69
N2 Immisc.
7.69
pressure N2 Immisc.
Steam
6.25
6.25
Water Flooding 48.28
Polymer 5.77
Polymer 25.29
reservoirs WAG HC Misc. 6.25 WAG CO2 Misc. 12.64Air 3.85
CO2 Immisc. 4.17 CO2 Misc. 10.34
WAG CO2 Misc. 4.17 N2 Immisc. 1.15
N2 Misc. 2.08 WAG HC Misc. 1.15
WAG N2 Misc. 2.08 Steam 1.15
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
Alvarado et al., SPE 78332, 2002

15
SPE-78332
Geologic Screening Criteria
LATERAL HETEROGENEITY
LOW MODERATE HIGH

Delta-front mouth bars

Wave-dominated delta
Proximal delta front Meander belts*
Barrier core
LOW
(accretionary) Fluvially dominated delta*
Barrier shore face
Tidal Deposits Back Barrier*
Sand-rich strand plain
Mud-rich strand plain
(7) / [2] (2) (2)
VERTICAL HETEROGENEITY

Shelf barriers
MODERATE

Eolian Alluvial Fans

Wave-modified delta Braided stream
Fan Delta
(distal) Tide-dominated delta
Lacustrine delta
(1) / [1] Distal delta front
(3) / [1] (3) / [2]

Back barrier**
HIGH

Coarse-grained meander belt Fluvially dominated delta**

Basin-flooring turbidites
Braid delta Fine-grained meander belt**
Submarine fans**
[1] (6)
* Single units **Stacked Systems
Tyler and Finley clastic heterogeneity matrix showing depositional systems of 24
successful (Blue) and 7 failed [Red] CO2 injection projects
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

16
 A possible methodology
1. Conventional screening (XY Plots) Conventional Screening

Geologic Screening

Field Cases Type I

2. Screening with analytical tools
Advanced Screening

3. Geological screening Evaluation of Soft Variables

Re-evaluation cycle
Decision Analysis Stop
4. Advanced screening
Performance Prediction

5. Inclusion of soft variables

Field Cases Type II

Analytical Simulation Numerical Simulation

6. Evaluate constraints (simulation) Economics

7. Economic evaluation Decision Analysis Stop

Manrique et al., SPEREE, 2009 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

A. Light-Oil Dolomitic Reservoir
Cluster 2-4
Method % Cluster 2-1
WAG-HC 38.5 Method %
N2 Miscible 23.1 Water Flooding 47.6
Water Flooding 23.1 WAG-CO2 Misc. 23.8
Binger Air 9.5
N2 Immiscible 15.4
CO2 Misc. 9.5
Polymer 9.5

East Binger
CO2 Misc.

Field “A” sensitivity cases N2 Immisc.

N2 Misc.

Polymer

WAG-CO2 Misc.

WAG-HC Misc.

air
Cluster 2-3
Method % Water flooding
N2 Immiscible 50.0
Polymer 25.0 Field A - Case 1
Water Flooding 25.0 Cluster 2-2
Method % Field A - Case 2
Water Flooding 42.9
Field A - Case 3
CO2 Misc. 14.3
N2 Miscible 14.3
WAG-CO2 Misc. 14.3
WAG-HC 14.3

Manrique et al., SPEREE, 2009 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

 B. Canadian Oil Sand
Screening Criteria Simulation
180000
SAGD NP=21m
160000 SAGD NP=10m

STEAM NP=21m

3
Cumulative Oil Production, m
140000
STEAM NP=10m
120000 IN-SITU NP=21m
LATERAL HETEROGENEITY IN-SITU NP=10m
100000
LOW MODERATE HIGH

Delta-front mouth bars 80000

Wave-dominated delta
Proximal delta front Meander belts*
LOW

Barrier core
(accretionary) Fluvially dominated delta*
Barrier shore face 60000
Tidal Deposits Back Barrier*
Sand-rich strand plain
VERTICAL HETEROGENEITY

Mud-rich strand plain

(9) / [2]
(9) / [1]
Shelf barriers
c1 40000
MODERATE

20000
Eolian
Wave modified delta (distal)
Alluvial Fans
Fan Delta
Lacustrine delta
Braided stream
Tide-dominated delta c2 0

...
Distal delta front 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(9) (83) / [14] (52) / [4]
Time, year

cn-1
Back barrier**
HIGH

Coarse-grained meander belt Fluvially dominated delta**

Basin-flooring turbidites
Braid delta Fine-grained meander belt**

(19) / [1]
* Single units **Stacked Systems
(2)
Submarine fans**
(4) cn
Decisions Uncertainties Values
Porosity (%) (16-45)

0.8
1

Analytic CO2 Oil Price Tax

Decision
0.6
Temperature (F) (10-280) Permeability (mD) (5-10500) Sequestration
CAPEX

and Risk
0.4

0.2

0
EOR Method Oil Production
Production NPV
revenue
Oil Viscosity (cp) (0.4-6000000) Depth (ft) (200-6800)

Reservoir Water
OPEX Objective
Function
Analysis
Primrose
McKittrick
Iron River
Yorba Linda
API Gravity (5.8-35)
Gueheng
Karamay 6
Frog Lake
Maguerite Lake
Karamay 9-5 - 9-9
Elk Point
Morgan
Athabasca
Properties Handling Costs
and EE
Peace River Area Saner Ranch Cat Canyon SF Yes High
Kern River Tangleflags East Wolf Lake/Primrose/Burnt Lake
Foster Creek Lean Lindbergh
Caribou Lake Charlotte Lake Gregoire (Athabasca)
Pikes Peak Cold Lake San Miguel-4 ISC Base case
Reservoir "A" Lost Hills Sec. 30 Schoonebeeck NPV

Cluster 5-1 SAGD No Low

Cluster 5-2 Method %
Method % Steam 37.5
Air 52.94 Air 25
Cluster 5-3 Steam 47.06 Polymer 25
Method % Water Flooding 12.5
CO2 Immisc. Air 70
Steam 30
N2 Immisc.

Polymer
50
Steam Burnt Lake CMG-75
Air Foster
Cluster 5-5 45 CMG-150
Creek
Water Flooding
Method %
CMG-300
WAG CO2 Immisc. ASP 35.71

ASP
Air 28.57 40 Prize-75
Reservoir “B” Steam 14.29
SAGD (Canada) CO2 Immisc. 7.14 Prize-150
35

Recovery factor, %
Polymer 7.14
Avg. Grosmont Carbonate Water Flooding 7.14 Prize-300
Peace River, Shell
Cluster 5-4
Cold Lake, IOL Method %
Cluster 5-6 30
CO2 Immisc. 33.33 Method %
Primrose, CNRL Air 22.22
CO2 Immisc. 33.33

25
Analytical vs.
WAGCO2 Immisc. 22.22
Ikiztepe (Heavy Oil Carbonate) N2 Immisc. 16.67
Water Flooding 11.11

Numeric
WAG CO2 Immisc. 16.67
Qarn Alam (Heavy Oil Carbonate) Polymer 11.11
Polymer 16.67
Issaran (Heavy Oil Carbonate) ASP 16.67
20

15 Numerical
10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Manrique et al., SPEREE, 2009 E N %HPore

AN C EInjected
Volume D OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
 B. Canadian Oil Sand
• Comparison of basic geologic
properties. LOW
LATERAL HETEROGENEITY
MODERATE HIGH

• DP coefficient from log and

LOW
core data to estimate the
impact on steam chamber

VERTICAL HETEROGENEITY
development.

MODERATE
• Lateral and vertical
heterogeneity indexes for
feasibility of SAGD well pairs in

HIGH
the same units, vertical
separation and length.

Manrique et al., SPEREE, 2009 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

B. Canadian Oil Sand
• Cells (120 m x 800 m)
indicates potential SAGD
well pairs locations.
Discarded for SAGD
• Cumulative oil and CSOR
can be estimated from
correlations for different
net pays with and w/o top
gas and bottom water.

• As expected, RF
decreases and CSOR
increases with thickness
and presence of top gas
and bottom water.
Manrique et al., SPEREE, 2009 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
Ongoing efforts at EORI-PETE (UW)
• Selection of adequate clustering algorithms
to data-mine EORI database and others
• Reservoir type identification
• Incorporation of reservoir, fluids and
geologic data into clustering methods
• Per-basin analysis of historical data

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

Screening: Variables used
• 3-7 variables (median) were considered: depth,
permeability, thickness, temperature, viscosity,
pressure, salinity. Example:

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

 Granularity
As one goes from top to bottom by fixing a horizontal line at certain levels, the number
of clusters can be identified. The numbers at the bottom represent the individual
reservoirs in the database
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
Projections
One way of visually looking at the data is projections. Here is
an example of 7 parameters projected on 3 Principal
Component (PCA). Colors identify clusters.

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

Projections
A more familiar look can be seen from the 2D projection

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

Projections (analogs)
The cluster structure can be used to find analogs
The lines joining “+”
with points identify
the connection
between 3 “new”
reservoirs with their
analog cases.
Minimum distance
was used to find the
analogs

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

Closing remarks

• Screening is not a one-step process and does not

replace reservoir studies, but helps to assist
decisions
• Several screening methods should be considered,
especially when different data types are used
• Data-mining approaches alleviate expert
opinions’ biases and can lead to the concept of
“reservoir type”

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

SPEREE

BACKUP SLIDES
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE
 C. Steam flooding project

60 50
Well Spacing = 75m SQ=1.0
Well Spacing = 150 m
50 Well Spacing = 225 m SQ=0.8

Recovery Factor, %
Recovery Factor,%

Well Spacing = 300 m 40 SQ=0.6

Well Spacing = 75m
Well Spacing = 150 m SQ=0.4
40 Well Spacing = 225 m
Well Spacing = 300 m 30 SQ=0.2
SQ=0.0
30
20
20

10 10

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
% Pore Volume Injected Well Spacing (m)

• Decreasing well spacing increases the recovery factor

• Steam quality > 0.6 is required for significant
E N Hincrements
A N C E D O I L R E C Oin recovery
VER Y I N S T I T U T Efactor

– this is a critical design variable

 C. Steam flooding project

$2,000 • Performance predictions from

simulations indicated
Net Present Value

$1,600
improvement in oil recovery
$1,200 for smaller well spacing
$800
• However, economics dictates
$400
PVI=70%, Oil Price = $90 an optimal well spacing below
PVI=70%, Oil Price = $60
which no economic gain can
$0
be obtained
0 100 200 300 400

Well Spacing, (m)

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

 C. Steam flooding project
• Decision problem is well spacing for a steam flooding
• Framing is for optimal recovery/production
• Building petrophysical models was not feasible
5000 10000

Manrique et al., SPEREE, 2009 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE

Screening: Variables used

• Parameters values were rescaled (normalized)

• Once processed, the data were partitioned and
clustered
• Dendograms were produced as a way to see the
structure of the data and analyzed granularity of
the dataset

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY INSTITUTE