Pulsed Water Injection During Waterflooding

Pulsed Water Injection During Waterflooding Jeroen Groenenboom; Jeroen Groenenboom Shell Intern. Expl. & Prod. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Sau-Wai Wong; Sau-Wai Wong Shell Intern. Expl. & Prod. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Tor Meling; Tor Meling Prism Production Technologies Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Robert Zschuppe; Robert Zschuppe Prism Production Technologies Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Brett Davidson Brett Davidson Prism Production Technologies Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 2003. Paper Number: SPE-84856-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/84856-MS Published: October 20 2003 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Groenenboom, Jeroen, Wong, Sau-Wai, Meling, Tor, Zschuppe, Robert, and Brett Davidson. "Pulsed Water Injection During Waterflooding." Paper presented at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 2003. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/84856-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific Search Advanced Search AbstractDuring a half-year field test a novel method was applied for water injection during waterflooding in a weakly consolidated, heavy oil reservoir (90–120 cP). The injection has been combined with a hydraulic pulsing tool downhole in the injection well to provide additional dynamic pressure pulses on the order of 4–17 bar, with 5–6 pulses per minute. The technology has been developed in Canada and applied successfully, especially as a well stimulation technique in order to initiate or stimulate oil production with sand co-production. The first objective was to see whether pulsing would be beneficial for the efficiency of the injection process. Furthermore, laboratory experiments and theoretical developments suggest that pulsing might improve the sweep efficiency of the flooding pattern. Hence, the promise of this technique would be potentially faster and higher oil recovery during waterflooding. In the design of the field test it was chosen to keep the total water injection rate on the same level as before pulsing was applied, on the order of 110 m3/d. The rationale behind this decision was that previous experience in the field has shown that higher injection rates resulted in pressurization of the reservoir and increased fingering. In addition, the fixed injection rate allowed us to focus on improvements in sweep efficiency, without correcting production figures for the higher injection rate.Pressure Pulse Technology (PPT) was applied without any significant operational problems for half a year although severe corrosion problems unrelated to the PPT project were uncovered after the trial. Injection and production performance has been monitored before, during and after the test. When pulsing started, injection pressure dropped, and even after the pulsing stopped a lower wellhead pressure has been measured. With constant injection rate this shows an improvement in injectivity. It also indicates a significant reduction in near wellbore skin factor or possible improved injection conformance. The injection water used is considered dirty and potentially deteriorates injectivity over the life of the well. Indications are that injection pressure is now slowly building up again following the trial.Improvements in production have not been confirmed by this field trial. The accuracy and repeatability of the production measurements have not assisted in identifying the potential effect. However, the field trial results have enabled us to recognize the potential use of the technology for an efficient high-rate injection strategy. Possibly this would avoid injection under fracturing conditions. We outline situations where such applications would be desirable. Higher injection rate and more efficient pulsed injection potentially lead to improved recovery, although actual improvements need to be assessed with further tests.IntroductionDuring waterflooding, water is injected in order to sweep the remaining oil towards the producers. The volumetric sweep efficiency is influenced by factors such as the mobility ratio, gravitational and capillary forces, injection rate, and reservoir heterogeneity1. Higher injection rate promotes faster recovery and supress gravity dominated water underruns. High pressure resulting from high injection rates can induce fractures, which can cause early water breakthrough by creating a preferential flow path to the producing wells. Higher pressures can also lead to accelerated viscous instabilities leading to poor sweep efficiency. Slower injection promotes capillary crossflow beneficial for increasing sweep in lower permeability layers. Summarizing, the optimum injection/production strategy will depend on the particular reservoir.Many technologies aim at improving the recovery of a flooding pattern, either by changing the physical properties of the injected fluid or by changing the injection and production strategy.A relatively inexpensive technology that has been reported2 to lead to improved recovery is the use of non-steady state waterflooding, or cyclic waterflooding based on using changes in injection rates over periods of days to months.Laboratory research in Canada investigated the use of rapid pressure pulses on the flooding of core samples. In this case the water injection is combined with short period (order 1–5 seconds) pressure pulses, pulsing several times each minute. Keywords: conformance, injection rate, well 689, water cut, well 678, upstream oil & gas, waterflooding, sweep efficiency, fluid production, injector Subjects: Improved and Enhanced Recovery, Waterflooding This content is only available via PDF. 2003. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.