Cartography of oil reserves and recovery factors of petroleum reservoirs

- IOR/EOR methods

to increase ultimate recovery

G. Renard – R. Vially - J-F. Argillier

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 2

Proved Oil Reserves (2009)

Total with oil sands : 1517 Gb

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 3

Oil recovery

•

•

Natural drainage

Conventional oil recovery

Steam

In situ combustion

Primary

Recovery Pumping/ Gas lift /

horizontal drilling

N2 Alkaline

Foam •

Borregales 1977

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 4

Oil recovery

Natural drainage

Conventional oil recovery Primary

Recovery Pumping/ Gas lift /

horizontal drilling

Pressure maintenance Water flood / Gas flood

Gas cycling

Secondary

recovery Drive

Water flood

RF (sandstones) 25-45%

Worldwide average : 35 % but large variations

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 5

Example of the North Sea

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 6

Secondary and Tertiary recovery

how to increase displacement efficiency oil that remains in the part of the reservoir

already swept

how to increase sweep efficiency oil that remains in the part of the reservoir not swept

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 7

Oil recovery

Thermal Gas miscible/immiscible

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

Natural drainage

Tertiary recovery Enhanced Oil Recovery

(increased RF +10-20%)

Conventional oil recovery

Steam

In situ combustion

Hydrocarbon

Primary

Recovery Pumping/ Gas lift /

horizontal drilling

Pressure maintenance Water flood / Gas flood

Gas cycling

Secondary

recovery

Other Chemical

CO2

N2

Polymer

Surfactant

Alkaline

Drive

Water flood

• Microbial

Foam •

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 8

Mechanisms of action

by increasing w polymer flooding

by increasing d foam drive / WAG

by decreasing o CO2 drive steam drive in situ combustion

action on sweep efficiency at the macroscopic scale

by using a miscible HC gas, CO2, N2

displacing fluid by reducing the surfactant flooding

interfacial tension by action on the alkaline flooding rock wettability

action on displacement efficiency at the pore scale

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 9

IOR / EOR

EOR will involve processes in order to act on the reservoir recovery mechanisms • Mobility control • Reduction of Sor • Increase of miscibility

Based on technologies, IOR evolves versus time according to various standards across the world and among the companies • Smart wells • Reservoir management • Reservoir characterization • Down hole separation, ...

IOR EOR

Enhanced Oil Recovery Improved Oil Recovery

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 10

Optimized reservoir management and monitoring

Better drainage architecture

Acidification, stimulation, reduction of formation damage

Reduction of uncertainties

Reservoir characterization, fractured reservoirs, 4D seismics

Well productivity improvement

Horizontal wells, Multilaterals, SAGD, VAPEX, THAI

Re-entry laterals from a

vertical well

Dual opposing laterals

Multidrain or multilateral well 3D WellCluster well

Stacked multibranch well Re-entry laterals from a

vertical well

Re-entry laterals from a

vertical well

Dual opposing laterals

Multidrain or multilateral well 3D WellCluster well

Stacked multibranch well

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 11

EOR at work…

EOR consists in injecting specific fluids into a reservoir to help recovering some portion of remaining oil

+1% Recovery factor = 2 to 3 years additional reserves!

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 12

Steam injection processes

HUFF AND PUFF

STEAM DRIVE

SAGD

SAP

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 13

Polymer flooding (Macroscopic sweeping)

Unfavorable mobility ratio M, results in an inefficiency of thewater flood oil displacement mechanism

o

o

w

w

kr

kr

M

Definition of mobility ratio

krw = Water Relative Permeability, fraction

w= Water viscosity, cp

kro = Oil Relative Permeability, fraction

O= Oil viscosity, cp

When polymer is added to the drive brine it reduces M and leads more to a piston like displacement and hence higher recovery efficiency

Wate

r Satu

ratio

n

w = oil

w = 0.1 oil Wate

r Satu

ratio

n

w = oil

w = 0.1 oil

water injection polymer injection

RFmax: +10-15%

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 14

Surfactant flooding (Microscopic mobilization)

Residual oil

saturation vs

capillary number

To remobilize oil, capillary number Ca, must be significantly increased

Core scale

/ S

orw

This can be achieved by lowering g

with optimized surfactant formulations

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 15

ASP process

Polymer

mobility ratio

Surfactant

decrease interfacial tension

Alkaline

decrease surfactant adsorption

ionize natural surfactants

Water

Oil

Oil bank

Oil Polymer Alkali Surfactant

water

water

drive

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 16

Chemicals

Mobility

Ratio

IFT Solubility

Stability

(thermal…)

Adsorption

Formulation

Performance

Mobility

Ratio

IFT Solubility

Stability

(thermal…)

Adsorption

Formulation

Performance

• Use of polymer

• Very favorable mobility

ratio required

• Long chain & adapted chemistries

• Sourcing (raw materials) is critical

• Adapted synthesis process

Depends on:

• Brine, rock (clays)

• pH

• Temperature

• Additives

Robust surfactants

& polymers are

required

Depends on:

• Brine

• Surfactant-polymer interactions

• Surfactant-surfactant interaction

• Temperature

• Additives (cosolvents)

Objective:

Design a formulation that will

give optimal performance based

on economical considerations

potential of green chemistry?

biodegradation

ecotoxicity

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 17

Screening criteria (heavy oils)

North Sea

Brazil Indonesia

USA (Cal.)

Venezuela

USA (Alaska)

Canada

Water flooding or HC miscible

Polymer flooding

Partial miscible CO2 flood

SAGD

Steam flood

In situ combustion

Cyclic Steam Stimulation /k (cp/mD)

Primary cold production (reference)

CHOPS

VAPEX

10-3 10-2 10-1 102 103 101

10-3 10-2 10-1 100 102 103 101

Tech

no

log

ies

R

eg

ion

s

100

/k (cp/mD)

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 18

Heavy, extra-heavy and

bitumen (API<20)

5 000 Gb

Conventional

Crudes

5 700 Gb

Already

produced

1 000 Gb

Recoverable with

present

technologies

900 Gb

Non-

recoverable

today

3 800 Gb

Already

produced

50 Gb

Recoverable with

present

technologies

700 Gb

Non-

recoverable

today

4 250 Gb

EOR target in the world

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 19

Worldwide EOR production in 2008

Thermal

HC

injection CO2

injection

Chemical

N2 injection

~ 2.3 Mb/j

2.5 % of the

world oil

production

Canada

18%

Venezuela

16%

China

7%

Indonesia

8%

Other countries ~0.5%

India, Colombia,

Trinidad, Brésil

Source: Oil & Gas Journal + IFP

Mexico

22%

USA 28%

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 20

2008 EOR production Breakdown by recovery method

Nitrogen

injection

22%

Thermal

52%

CO2 injection

12%

Hydrocarbon

gas injection

12%

Others

0%

Chemical

2%

98% steam

1.5% combustion in

situ

<1% hot water

Source: IFP + Oil & Gas Journal

Terms of Production

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 21

2008 EOR production Breakdown by recovery method

Nitrogen

injection (6)

Thermal CO2 injection

Hydrocarbon

gas injection

Microbial (2)

Chemical (23)

133 steam

21 combustion in situ

3 hot water

157

38

122

About 350 active projects

Nb of actives projects

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 22

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

EOR Total

Nitrogen injection

Chemical

HC gas injection

CO2 injection

Thermal

Production Mb/d

Production

‘ 000 b/d

2.361 2.224 2.399 2.295

Source: IFP + Oil & Gas Journal

2000-2008 EOR production evolution

2.278

2008/2006

-4.3%

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 23

Active projects

314 308 302 348

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2002 2004 2006 2008

Microbial

Nitrogen injection

Chemical

HC gas injection

CO2 injection

Thermal

2000-2008 EOR by number of projects

2008/2006

+15%

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 24

EOR Costs & Recovery Rate

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Polymerflood

Surfactantflood

Recovery factor

Co

sts

in

$/b

Waterflood

CO2

Solvent aided

process

Steam

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 25

Chemical EOR Alliance

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 26

Chemical EOR project milestones

© IF

P

G. Renard – R. Vially – J-F. Argilllier IFP Energies nouvelles 27

Conclusions

EOR production is increasing but slowly

Despite a context of high oil price & increasing demand

Today evolution technologies

Steam is decreasing for very viscous crude

Environmental impact of high water consumption

Price of gas, high CO2 emissions for others

CO2 is highly increasing

Additional revenues for CCS

Answer to global warming concern

Chemical injection, mainly polymer flood

Allow to enhance waterflood, widely used technology

As a wide potential

Not no expensive technology