尼日尔三角洲油田注水改注气提高采收率

J. Akpabio, B. E. Jackson, Celestine A. Udie
{"title":"尼日尔三角洲油田注水改注气提高采收率","authors":"J. Akpabio, B. E. Jackson, Celestine A. Udie","doi":"10.2118/198835-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The ‘JEB’ oilfield has been in operation since 1992 with 24 oil producing Wells, 8 water injection Wells and no gas injection. From inception, the field was producing at the rate of 27 MSTB/D. The gas produced was 34,333.7 SCF/D which was being flared but later supplied to the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) for export. The field had very weak aquifer support and therefore had been water-flooded from early days of its production. With high water cut, it was necessary to find ways of reducing water production and increasing oil production. The study involved field data gathering, history matching of the field data and prediction of future production. Production rates from the different production schemes were simulated for fourteen years. The cumulative oil production of gas injection, water alternating gas (WAG) injection and gas alternating water (GAW) injection schemes were 4.28 MMMSTB, 3.29 MMMSTB and 3.15 MMMSTB respectively representing an incremental recovery of 38%, 6%, and 1%. The cumulative water production of gas injection, WAG injection and GAW injection were 2.65 MMMSTB, 6.52 MMMSTB and 6.90 MMMSTB respectively, which represent 64%, 10% and 5% reduction in produced water. The economic analysis showed gas injection as the best alternative injection scheme for the field with internal rate of return (IRR) of 19.26 %, while the IRR of WAG and GAW injection schemes were 12.09 % and 11.22 % respectively. Also, at 15% discount rate, the gas injection scheme had the best result with a Profitability Index (PI) greater than 1, a positive Net Present Value (NPV) while all other injection schemes had negative NPV and PI was less than one. The possibility of changing a field from water injection to gas injection has been explored, hence, before embarking on any enhanced oil recovery scheme, other alternatives should be evaluated.","PeriodicalId":11250,"journal":{"name":"Day 3 Wed, August 07, 2019","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Switching from Water Injection Scheme to Gas Injection Scheme for Improved Oil Recovery in a Niger Delta Oilfield\",\"authors\":\"J. Akpabio, B. E. Jackson, Celestine A. Udie\",\"doi\":\"10.2118/198835-MS\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The ‘JEB’ oilfield has been in operation since 1992 with 24 oil producing Wells, 8 water injection Wells and no gas injection. From inception, the field was producing at the rate of 27 MSTB/D. The gas produced was 34,333.7 SCF/D which was being flared but later supplied to the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) for export. The field had very weak aquifer support and therefore had been water-flooded from early days of its production. With high water cut, it was necessary to find ways of reducing water production and increasing oil production. The study involved field data gathering, history matching of the field data and prediction of future production. Production rates from the different production schemes were simulated for fourteen years. The cumulative oil production of gas injection, water alternating gas (WAG) injection and gas alternating water (GAW) injection schemes were 4.28 MMMSTB, 3.29 MMMSTB and 3.15 MMMSTB respectively representing an incremental recovery of 38%, 6%, and 1%. The cumulative water production of gas injection, WAG injection and GAW injection were 2.65 MMMSTB, 6.52 MMMSTB and 6.90 MMMSTB respectively, which represent 64%, 10% and 5% reduction in produced water. The economic analysis showed gas injection as the best alternative injection scheme for the field with internal rate of return (IRR) of 19.26 %, while the IRR of WAG and GAW injection schemes were 12.09 % and 11.22 % respectively. Also, at 15% discount rate, the gas injection scheme had the best result with a Profitability Index (PI) greater than 1, a positive Net Present Value (NPV) while all other injection schemes had negative NPV and PI was less than one. The possibility of changing a field from water injection to gas injection has been explored, hence, before embarking on any enhanced oil recovery scheme, other alternatives should be evaluated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Day 3 Wed, August 07, 2019\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Day 3 Wed, August 07, 2019\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2118/198835-MS\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 3 Wed, August 07, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/198835-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

JEB油田自1992年开始运营,共有24口油井,8口注水井,没有注气井。从一开始,该油田的产量为27mstb /D。天然气产量为34,333.7 SCF/D,这些天然气被燃烧后供应给尼日利亚液化天然气(NLNG)出口。该油田的含水层支撑非常弱,因此从生产初期就一直处于水淹状态。在高含水的情况下,必须寻找降水增油的方法。该研究包括现场数据收集、现场数据历史匹配和未来产量预测。对不同生产方案的产量进行了14年的模拟。注气、水交替气(WAG)和气交替水(GAW)方案的累计产油量分别为4.28 MMMSTB、3.29 MMMSTB和3.15 MMMSTB,增量采收率分别为38%、6%和1%。注气、注WAG和注GAW的累计产水量分别为2.65 MMMSTB、6.52 MMMSTB和6.90 MMMSTB,分别减少了64%、10%和5%的采出水。经济分析表明,注气方案是该油田的最佳替代方案,其内部收益率为19.26%,而WAG和GAW方案的内部收益率分别为12.09%和11.22%。此外,在15%的贴现率下,注气方案的最佳效果是盈利指数(PI)大于1,净现值(NPV)为正,而所有其他注气方案的净现值均为负,PI小于1。已经探索了将油田从注水改为注气的可能性,因此,在开始任何提高采收率的方案之前,应该评估其他替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Switching from Water Injection Scheme to Gas Injection Scheme for Improved Oil Recovery in a Niger Delta Oilfield
The ‘JEB’ oilfield has been in operation since 1992 with 24 oil producing Wells, 8 water injection Wells and no gas injection. From inception, the field was producing at the rate of 27 MSTB/D. The gas produced was 34,333.7 SCF/D which was being flared but later supplied to the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) for export. The field had very weak aquifer support and therefore had been water-flooded from early days of its production. With high water cut, it was necessary to find ways of reducing water production and increasing oil production. The study involved field data gathering, history matching of the field data and prediction of future production. Production rates from the different production schemes were simulated for fourteen years. The cumulative oil production of gas injection, water alternating gas (WAG) injection and gas alternating water (GAW) injection schemes were 4.28 MMMSTB, 3.29 MMMSTB and 3.15 MMMSTB respectively representing an incremental recovery of 38%, 6%, and 1%. The cumulative water production of gas injection, WAG injection and GAW injection were 2.65 MMMSTB, 6.52 MMMSTB and 6.90 MMMSTB respectively, which represent 64%, 10% and 5% reduction in produced water. The economic analysis showed gas injection as the best alternative injection scheme for the field with internal rate of return (IRR) of 19.26 %, while the IRR of WAG and GAW injection schemes were 12.09 % and 11.22 % respectively. Also, at 15% discount rate, the gas injection scheme had the best result with a Profitability Index (PI) greater than 1, a positive Net Present Value (NPV) while all other injection schemes had negative NPV and PI was less than one. The possibility of changing a field from water injection to gas injection has been explored, hence, before embarking on any enhanced oil recovery scheme, other alternatives should be evaluated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信