MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1973656197 · doi:10.2523/iptc-11181-ms

A full-field Simulation Study of the Effect of Foam Injection on Recovery Factor of an Iranian Oil Reservoir

2007· article· en· W1973656197 sur OpenAlexaff
Seyed Mehdi Alizadeh, Naser Alizadeh, Brij Maini

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Petroleum Technology Conference · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPetroleum engineeringEnhanced oil recoveryInjection wellPorous mediumSteam injectionOil in placeInjectorWater injection (oil production)Oil fieldFoaming agentPermeability (electromagnetism)Environmental scienceGeologyPorosityGeotechnical engineeringPetroleumEngineeringChemistry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract In some of Iranian oil reservoirs gas is injected for pressure maintenance as well as displacement of oil by gas. In some of these fields, it comes to a premature breakthrough of injected gas due to high permeability in some regions of the reservoir or because of the geometry of the reservoir. Foam injection appears to be a promising tool in solving the problem with thief zones and low recovery from EOR methods such as immiscible gas injection in Iranian oil reservoirs. It can also mitigate the effect of gravity override and achieve increased displacement efficiency in these reservoirs. Introduction Field application of foam is becoming a proven technology, surfactant costs withstanding, to control the mobility of gaseous phases in porous media. Foam has been employed in large number of documented field trials world wide [1]. Typical applications span from steam and co2 foam to alleviate gravity override and channeling, production well treatments to reduce GOR, to gelled-foams for long-lasting plugging of high permeability channels. Foam processes have also been studied and field tested for use as groundwater aquifer clean up methods [1]. Foam has been employed in more than 30 documented field trials world wide, mainly in the USA. In the North Sea, foam has been tested in production well treatments both on the Oseberg field and on the Snorre field in the Norwegian sector, and on the Beryl-field in the British sector. Late in 1998, a large injector treatment started on Snorre, involving injection of almost 1000 tonnes surfactant [2]. In the present work, foam is injected into the reservoir and then using a field-scale simulation study, we investigate the effect of foam injection on gas mobility and oil recovery improvement. The obtained results reveal a significant incremental recovery. Gas breakthrough is also retarded remarkably. Geological Overview of the Field The M field was discovered in 1962/63 and subsequent drilling has confirmed two reservoirs (Asmari and Bangestan). This simulation study is concerned only with the shallower Asmari reservoir. It was put on production in 1974. A total of 47 wells have now been drilled on the field, of which 12 are dedicated to producing the Asmari reservoir and one well utilized as an observation well. The Asmari formation is recognized as a regionally extensive geological unit, and it is known to contain a number of large oil accumulations; one of these is located at M field. Despite some complex reservoir lithology, there is good evidence of pressure communication within the Asmari between some of the different accumulations around the Ahwaz area. This is associated with a strong subsurface aquifer system. The structure is a northwest-southeast trending asymmetric anticline. It is defined by seismic with no surface expression, and it is located on the Khuzestan plain. This area slopes gently at a rate of 1 m in 5 km to the southwest between Ahwaz and Khorramshahr. The M structure is located some 60 km north of the Persian Gulf. The Asmari structure covers an area 42 x 5.5 km at the mapped spill point (around 2,400 mss). The hydrocarbon- bearing reservoir covers an area 30 x 3 km with the reservoir crest located at 2,144 mss. The M structure has a dip of 6 to 8° and 5 to 6° on the northeast and southwest flanks respectively. However, the dip decreases toward the southeastern and northwestern extremities. The first field study for the Asmari was prepared by BP in 1974 using 3 wells. That study divided the Asmari into 5 units.Zone 1: Upper carbonateZone 2: Upper sandstoneZone 3: Middle carbonateZone 4: Lower sandstoneZone 5: Lower carbonate In 1978 Shir Mohammadi reviewed the reservoir and separated it into 8 zones. Zones 1, 6 and 8 were mainly carbonate whereas Zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 were mainly sandstone, and Zone 7 was locally sandy. Zone 1: Carbonate rocks. Zone 2: Sandstone (mainly).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,043
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,086

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,276
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Petroleum Technology ConferenceMême sujetEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesTravaux en français237 207