EOR Screening For Ekofisk-2000
EOR Screening For Ekofisk-2000
EOR Screening For Ekofisk-2000
ABSTRACT
An investigation of alternative EOR processes having
potential application in the giant Ekofisk chalk field is
presented. Technical feasibility, process readiness, oil
recovery potential, and related uncertainties and risks of five
selected EOR processes, namely hydrocarbon (HC) WAG,
nitrogen (N2) WAG, carbon dioxide (CO2) WAG, air
injection and microbial EOR (MEOR), are assessed for
possible application at Ekofisk. The objective of the
screening study was to evaluate and rank the EOR
alternatives and to select the most attractive process(es) on
which to pursue further work toward possible field pilot
testing. The focus of the paper is on the technical assessment
of the relative oil recovery potential of each process, and on
the importance of identifying critical operational and
logistical considerations for implementation of an EOR
processes in the offshore North Sea operating environment.
Estimates of potential EOR incremental oil recovery for
the Ekofisk field can be quite significant. However, key
project development and implementation issues and
additional cost elements must be weighed equally with oil
recovery forecasts in any EOR process ranking. Some of
these issues (e.g. injection gas supply, facilities
requirements, and the impact of EOR on chalk compaction,
subsidence and wellbore integrity) may be significant
enough to eliminate a process from further consideration.
In addition, there are significant differences in the
quantity and quality of key laboratory and field data
supporting the viability of the various EOR processes being
considered. Only a limited amount of field-specific data are
available to calibrate the performance predictions for some
of the processes. There is also a wide variation in the
technical readiness of each process to begin field pilot
design studies. Table 1 summarizes the state of technical
readiness for field implementation of each process and
identifies some of the major risk elements and remaining
work required to progress these EOR processes at Ekofisk.
BACKGROUND
The Ekofisk Field is located in the Norwegian Sector of the
North Sea, Figure 1. The reservoir is an elongated anticline
with the major axis running North-South covering roughly
12,000 acres, Figure 2. It produces from two fractured chalk
horizons, the Ekofisk and Tor Formations, separated by a
tight zone. The overlying Ekofisk Formation has a depth of
about 9,600 feet and thickness varies from 350 - 500 feet
with porosities from less than 30% to 48%. The underlying
Tor Formation thickness varies from 250 - 500 feet with
porosities from less than 30% to 40%. About two thirds of
the 6.4 billion STB OOIP is in the Ekofisk Formation. The
initial reservoir pressure was 7135 psia at a depth of 10,400
feet. The field initially contained an undersaturated volatile
oil with a bubble point pressure of 5560 psia at the
temperature of 268F.
Ekofisk1 was discovered in 1969 and test production was
started in 1971 from the discovery well and three appraisal
wells. Commercial test rates prompted development of the
field from three platforms. Permanent facilities with 54 well
slots and 300,000 STB/D (design capacity) process facilities
were operational in May 1974. Development drilling was
started June 1974. Oil production peaked at 350,000 STB/D
in October 1976. Produced gas was reinjected2 until a gas
pipeline was installed to Emden, Germany, September 1977.
SPE 65124
SPE 65124
injector was the most likely reason for the loss of gas
injectivity. Various remedial measures are under
considerations for gas injection in a possible future
hydrocarbon WAG scenario.
APPROACH AND PREMISES
In 1998 the decision was made to conduct a broad
scoping study to assess enhanced oil recovery potential for
the Ekofisk Field. The objective was to evaluate and rank
various EOR alternatives and to select the most attractive
process(es) on which to pursue further work toward possible
field pilot testing. Two underlying premises were adopted in
the approach to evaluating EOR alternatives for Ekofisk.
First, in the absence of definitive data to the contrary, any
minor technical or logistical uncertainties were assumed to
be favorably resolved prior to process implementation.
Second, in the absence of sufficient Ekofisk-specific
laboratory or field performance data, EOR process
performance in the Ekofisk reservoir was assumed to be
consistent with typical performance demonstrated in other
field applications or calculated based on industry field and
laboratory performance data. One consequence of these
premises is that those less mature, emerging technologies
(i.e. MEOR and air injection) may tend to be represented
more favorably relative to the more extensively studied and
tested technologies (HC WAG) where process performance
is more constrained by Ekofisk-specific lab testing and/or
field performance data.
Injectant Contact with Waterflood Residual Oil
One of the key issues determining incremental oil
recovery by any EOR process being considered for
application at Ekofisk is the ability of the EOR injectant to
contact and mobilize waterflood residual oil in the fractured
chalk. The premise for the process performance modeling
used to generate the forecasts in this screening study is that
injected gas will be able to move into the chalk matrix to
contact and viscously displace water flood residual oil. This
modeling premise is based on performance of the
imbibition/viscous displacement of oil by water under
current water flood operations as represented in the current
full-field Ekofisk model.
However, any gas injection EOR process following
waterflood at Ekofisk will operate under a different
(dominantly gas/water) flow system than that which is
dominant under water flooding. If gas preferentially flows
through the fracture system and its contact with residual oil
in the matrix blocks is either prevented by capillary
threshold entry pressures or is severely rate-limited by a
relatively slow process such as gas-water diffusion, then the
incremental oil recovery could be dramatically lower than
forecasted. The field simulation model forecasts and
laboratory experimental work to date were all conducted
under the implicit premise that injection gas will be able to
contact residual oil in the chalk matrix.
Although studied in the past,2 additional study of gas
flow and displacement mechanisms in fractured Ekofisk
chalk is needed to validate this premise. This involves
studies to understand the relative importance of viscous,
capillary and diffusion dominated mechanisms in fractured
Ekofisk chalk gas injection processes. While this issue may
SPE 65124
CO2 W A G
N2 W A G
400
A ir Injec tion
M E OR
300
200
100
-100
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
YEAR
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
SPE 65124
1 8 0 0 00
W a te r in je c tio n c as e
1 6 0 0 00
W A G c as e
1 4 0 0 00
1 2 0 0 00
1 0 0 0 00
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
2028
Ye ar
SPE 65124
SPE 65124
Potential Benefits
a) Reduced costs for gas lift,
b) Reduced future costs/penalties associated with handling
of produced water,
c) Increased capacity for oil during liquid constrained
periods,
d) Acceleration of HC gas recovery, and
e) Possible increased reserves due to enhanced compaction
drive.
MICROBIAL EOR
Summary of Major Process Mechanisms, Data Sources,
and Data Quality
Microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) is still an
emerging technology and the exact mechanisms by which
microbial agents are able to effect mobilization and recovery
of incremental oil in a given reservoir are not clearly
understood. MEOR processes likely act through a complex
of different mechanisms, including wettability alteration,
IFT reduction, oil viscosity reduction, and others. As a
consequence, there are no robust predictive models available
to effectively simulate MEOR process applications and oil
recovery potential at Ekofisk. Moreover, at this time, there
are no specific laboratory data to support or refute claims of
oil recovery potential by MEOR in the Ekofisk reservoir.
Estimates of recovery potential in this paper are made by
analogy under the premise that a viable MEOR system can
be developed for application at Ekofisk which will have
performance characteristics analogous to other field results
reported to date.
Major Process Implementation Issues and Premises
The microbial oil recovery forecasts were generated by upscaling a composite of typical field project results. It was
necessary to use this empirical approach to estimate MEOR
performance as the exact mechanisms of microbial oil
recovery are still poorly understood and consequently there
are no simulation models available to make reliable MEOR
field performance forecasts. The nature of microbial
transport in a fractured chalk reservoir has not been
evaluated. Reduced reservoir temperatures near the water
injection wells would probably be favorable for microbial
growth. Issues of the viability of microbes over the wide
range of temperatures existing in Ekofisk, and particularly
the impact of higher reservoir temperatures on the MEOR
process, needs to be investigated further.
Several of the possible mechanisms suggested for oil
mobilization in MEOR involve wettability alteration and/or
IFT reduction. These are mechanisms similar to those of
surfactant flooding, which has been considered previously
but is not being actively pursued as an EOR method at
Ekofisk because of low oil recovery forecasts. This raises
the question of how and why the MEOR process is different
from surfactant processes considered earlier and therefore
merits continued interest?
The MEOR process is not just a surfactant process the
mechanisms suggested as being important in MEOR are
varied and complex (e.g. oil viscosity reduction, gas
production, solvent production) and are not fully
understood. Another key difference between MEOR and
SPE 65124
SPE 65124
10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge permission to publish the above
paper from Phillips Petroleum Company Norway and the
Ekofisk Coventurers, including Fina Exploration Norway
s.c.a., Norsk Agip A/S, Elf Petroleum Norge A/S, Norsk
Hydro Production as, TOTAL Norge A.S. and Den norsk
stats oljeselskap a.s.
REFERENCES
1. Hermansen, H., Thomas, L.K., Sylte, J.E. and Aasbe,
B.T., Twenty Five Years of Ekofisk Reservoir
Management, Paper SPE 38927 presented at the 1997
SPE 65124