EOR/IOR
Gas-Injection Pilot in the
Hochleiten Field
The Hochleiten field, a marginal field
north of Vienna, Austria, is highly com-
partmentalized and contains very viscous
oil. Waterflooding worked only in a part
of the reservoir. Poor communication and
large pressure differences were observed
across the field. A CO2 injection was
attempted in an area in which no water-
flood had been tried. Use of CO2
improved the inflow capacity of the injec-
tor, but oil production from affected wells
increased only slightly. To match the actu-
al response of the reservoir, reservoir-
model adjustments became necessary. To
support the existing reservoir description,
an N2-tracer test was initiated to deter-
mine the preferred communication paths.
Introduction
The Hochleiten field was discovered in 1973. Production History
Production began in 1974. The main reser- Production began in 1977, but was inter-
voir is the Tertiary Lower Sarmatian at a rupted from 1985 to 1989 to keep the field
depth between approximately
710 and 800 m subsea. The
structure map in Fig. 1 shows
that the reservoir is highly com-
partmentalized with two major,
probably sealing, faults. The
reservoir is oil bearing, with
small gas caps in Sectors A and C.
Approximately 30 wells have
been drilled. A waterflood, com-
prising two wells each in Sectors
A and C, was initiated in 1991
with mixed success because of
the high level of structural and
stratigraphical heterogeneity.
Sector B was not included in the
waterflood program because the
production history did not
define fault locations of imper-
meable layers.
In 1997, a detailed and inte-
grated reservoir study was initi-
ated to understand reservoir
behavior. On the basis of new
3D-seismic data, a team of geo-
scientists and engineers revised
the structural and stratigraphic
framework of the field, leading
to a new reservoir model for
Fig. 1—Hochleiten field structure map.
dynamic simulation. Several
JANUARY 2005
recompletions and infill-drilling locations
were identified.
It became evident that lateral-facies
changes, as well as reservoir compartmen-
talization, led to early pressure decline or
early water breakthrough. Combining a
material-balance model with neural-net-
work models in one sector of the reservoir
showed that the connectivity between wells
and layers generally is poor, and, in particu-
lar, water injection at downdip locations
could not support the pressure sufficiently
in the updip areas of the structure. It also
was found that the dissolution of gas
increased oil recovery more efficiently than
waterdrive alone. Therefore, gas injection is
expected to be more efficient than water-
flooding to access bypassed oil.
Sector C
Sector B
E2
Sector A
E3
This article, written by Technology
Editor Dennis Denney, contains high-
lights of paper SPE 89356, “Gas-
Injection Pilot in the Hochleiten Field,”
by K. Potsch, SPE, R. Ramberger,
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/57/01/47/2669938/spe-0105-0047-jpt.pdf/1 by Bilal Fauzan on 22 October 2023
SPE, J. Glantschnig, SPE,
S. Baumgarthuber, SPE, and
F. Gößnitzer, SPE, OMV A.G., pre-
pared for the 2004 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, 17–21 April.
as a strategic reserve. The three sectors
showed a different production behavior
because gas caps developed to various
extents. A production test, several years
after the field was first produced, exhibited
very high gas/oil ratios (GORs) and a high
water cut of up to 0.5. When the field was
finally put on stream without interruption,
the gross rates in Sector B
were significantly lower than
in the other two sectors.
The water cut was the same
in all sectors; however, the
GOR in Sector B was higher,
even at lower production
rates, then dropped after a
sharp increase.
Reservoir Simulation
E1 The simulation study was
undertaken to assess the
remaining oil reserves.
Relative permeability data
were estimated from
Honarpour correlations.
Residual-saturation data
were taken from sandpack
experiments in which reser-
voir material was used.
Enhanced-Recovery
Options. The challenges
included the small size, com-
partmentalization, hetero-
geneity, and the high-viscos-
ity oil. The Hochleiten reser-
voir would qualify for CO2
flooding, polymer flooding,
47
or thermal methods. Several methods have
been attempted in the Vienna basin, but a
fieldwide application was never tried. After
soliciting and reviewing three outside rec-
ommendations, which are detailed in the
full-length paper, the CO2 flood using the
“huff ’n’ puff” approach was selected.
Laboratory Investigation
Only CO2 and N2 gas-injection projects
were investigated. The CO2-related investi-
gations consisted of black-oil pressure/vol-
ume/temperature (PVT), swelling, and dis-
placement tests. The latter were performed
on long and short sandpacks. No field pilot
was started.
The N2-injection experiments focused on
recovering attic oil. The experiments were
conducted at ambient and reservoir condi-
tions. The latter were not completed at the
time this paper was written. The criteria
used for selecting EOR methods resulted in
CO2 injection as the most likely process
to succeed.
Miscibility. The first test with a major influ-
ence on the amount of oil recovered was the
minimum miscibility pressure. Miscibility
was investigated with PVT programs. The
limiting saturation pressure for a slightly-
oil-diluted CO2 was calculated at 81 to
77 bar. Slimtube tests added experimental
insight. The calculations predicted immisci-
bility for the Hochleiten-field reservoir con-
ditions, mainly because of the low tempera-
ture. The slimtube tests were carried out
only at reservoir temperature, and miscibil-
ity was not observed at any pressure.
Other laboratory investigations focused
on providing data for a numerical simula-
tion and to estimate the effect of injection of
various gases. Because miscibility could not
be reached, gas injection targeted viscosity
reduction. The investigations used standard
black-oil PVT tests followed by swelling
tests; both CO2 and N2 were used. A certain
amount of gas was added to stock-tank oil,
and at each step, the bubblepoint pressure,
formation volume factor, and viscosity were
determined. The viscosity reduction was
remarkable. Solubility tests showed how
fast and to what extent the three gases went
into solution in water and oil.
The most-permeable layers in the field are
unconsolidated sand; so no core plugs were
available, and samples for flooding had to be
prepared as sandpacks from reservoir mate-
rial. Because gas injection was the preferred
EOR method and the reservoir exhibited a
small dip, experiments were conducted in
horizontal and slanted positions with vary-
ing inclination.
48
Pilot Installation
The first pilot was a huff ’n’ puff scheme. The
Hochleiten field is in a densely forested area,
and wells are clustered to minimize damage
to the environment. Surface equipment for
the CO2-injection unit was installed at the
cluster of Wells HL3, HL4, and HL45. It
included an insulated storage tank, four
high-pressure pumps, a heat exchanger
(vaporizer), and a metering point. The liquid
CO2 was supplied by truck, and all process
data were recorded in real time.
Injection began on 20 June 2002 and last-
ed until September 2002. In total,
0.537×106 m3 were injected in Well HL45.
In huff ’n’ puff mode, the injected CO2
should swell the oil, reduce the viscosity, and
replenish part of the sector energy for later
increased production. All other wells in
Sector B were producing. Unfortunately, the
fault between Wells HL3 and HL45 was not
sealing, and production of Well HL3 had to
be interrupted because of early CO2 break-
through. The injected CO2 in the sector was
allowed to soak for approximately 2 weeks.
Then, Well-HL45 production was resumed.
The production data led to the assump-
tion that uncertainty still existed about the
flow paths. Therefore, a tracer test in the
form of N2 injection in Well HL13 was ini-
tiated. Two layers show some effect. The
gases were injected in Layers 1c and 1d.
The more distant Well HL8 and Well HL27
did not show any response to the gas injec-
tion, probably because of some imperme-
able blocking streaks. The next pair of wells
closer to the injectors was Well HL6 and
Well HL7. The only observed response was
in Well HL7, with an increase in GOR
because of the CO2 injection. The oil pro-
duction of that well responded with a spike
after the tracer test. Well HL19, close to N2-
injector HL13, saw an increase in GOR
after the CO2 injection, which means that
some of the CO2-enriched oil must have
reached that well. The oil production
remained at the previous level.
The wells closest to the CO2 injector,
Wells HL3 and HL4, showed different
behavior. Well HL3 experienced early
breakthrough with an instant rise in GOR,
resulting in a halt of production; no posi-
tive effect was seen. Well HL4 improved its
performance by 30%. In the beginning of
the puff phase, the injector produced more
gas than before the test. The gross produc-
tion increased, while the oil production,
being slightly higher, reflected two peaks of
the gas-injection periods. Therefore, the
gas-injection process yielded some positive
results, but not enough to cover the costs of
the pilot project. The question whether
continuous injection would have been
more favorable remains unanswered.
Nitrogen-Injection Test. The unexpected
breakthrough of CO2 in Well HL3 led to a
tracer test to determine flow paths and the
sealing quality of faults. Nitrogen was used
because the oil contains only small quanti-
ties of this gas. The only conclusion that
could be drawn was that Well HL19
responded very quickly to the N2 injection,
followed by Wells HL3, HL4, and HL7.
Reservoir/Pilot Simulation. A simulation
study was carried out in 1995. The black-oil
model had difficulties in matching the reser-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/57/01/47/2669938/spe-0105-0047-jpt.pdf/1 by Bilal Fauzan on 22 October 2023
voir pressure and production GOR. The
study recommended additional water injec-
tion. Gas injection also was mentioned as
an option.
In the Fall of 2002, with the CO2-injec-
tion pilot in operation, a new composition-
al-simulation study was undertaken, which
focused on Sector B. The match of pressure
and GOR were good. The simulation
results of the CO2 injection in Well HL45
were satisfactory. The prediction runs
showed a minor gain of the CO2 slug in
relation to the base case. The unexpected
breakthrough of CO2 in Well HL3 rendered
the pilot uneconomical.
Of all processes considered (CO2 injec-
tion, water-alternating-gas injection with
CO2, and N2 injection), the first option was
still the best. Surprisingly, the inert gas (N2)
yielded similar production figures.
Continuous CO2 injection also was simulat-
ed for Wells HL19 and HL8. Preliminary
results showed that this option would not
be economical.
Conclusions
• The geologic composition of the reser-
voir is very complicated.
• In general, surveillance of the pilot suf-
fered from the economic constraints.
• Production-monitoring measurement
points should have been denser.
• Permanent downhole gauges would
have improved pressure surveillance.
• The results showed no significant posi-
tive effect.
• Overall, the pilot contributed signifi-
cantly to the experience of the people
involved. JPT
For a limited time, the full-length paper
is available free to SPE members at
www.spe.org/jpt. The paper has not
been peer reviewed.
JANUARY 2005