Page 338 - Intelligent Digital Oil And Gas Fields

282 Intelligent Digital Oil and Gas Fields

1.0
0.9
0.8
Water cut, fraction 0.6
0.7

0.5
0.4
Water injection
0.3
WAG traditional
0.2
0.1
WAGCV Gas injection
0
01/01 09/03 06/06 03/09 12/11 09/14
WCUT WAG-6×6 WCUT WAGCV WCUT inj water WCUT inj gas
Fig. 7.21 WAGCV simulation: results of water cut profile versus time (from Carvajal et al.
2015). (Taken with permission from EAGE white paper 2214-4609.)

2.0 million bbl (13%) more than the traditional WAG process and 5.5 mil-
lion (44%) more than gas or water injection. Fig. 7.21 shows water cut versus
time for the four processes.
This new approach uses an advanced optimization technique that pro-
actively simulates (using 3D numerical simulation) where and when to inject
the required slug. The results demonstrate that when using this kind of EOR
injection, oil recovery can be enhanced by 5% compared with the traditional
WAG process and 15% compared with classical water injection. The simu-
lation showed that water cut is reduced significantly and GOR is kept very
low, helping to extend the life of the reservoir production.

7.8.2 Thermal Monitoring
In heavy oils, high-viscosity reservoir in Canada, Shell patented the idea of
using ICVs with a steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) process. SAGD
(Butler and Stephens, 1981) has been implemented since the 1990s,
improving the oil-recovery factor in the area of steam chamber generation
compared with traditional continuous steam flooding injection. The main
problem with SAGD is the difficulty in controlling the fingering of steam
chambers, which causes an abrupt steam breakthrough to the producer
wells. To control the steam chamber growth, Clark et al. (2010) have used
four ICVs spaced at 200m each in the steam injector wells. They also used
full EOR closed-loop reservoir management tools, which incorporated
seismic thermal response, fiber optic, and full-equipped wells with both
pressure and temperature gauges to monitor in real time the deviation