UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES, DEHRADUN
Summer Internship Project Report
Estimation of primary and secondary hydrocarbon recovery from an
oil reservoir
submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the degree of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
in
APPLIED PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
with specialisation in Upstream (Semester-VI)
By Team No: 6
S. No. Student Name Roll No. Sap ID
1 Aniket Jain R870217021 500060756
2 Anuj Bhatia R870217032 500060916
3 Arsh Attri R870217039 500060642
4 Ayush Pandey R870217045 500060703
Under the Guidance of
Mentor Placement in charge Coordinator
Dr. Anil Kumar Dr. Pushpa Sharma
Professor Professor
School of Engineering (SOE)
Department of Petroleum Engineering & Earth Sciences, UPES
Dehradun – 248 007
AUGUST 2020
1|Page
DECLARATION BY THE SCHOLARS
I hereby declare that this submission is my own and that, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously
published or written by another person nor material which has been
accepted for the award of any other Degree or Diploma of the University
or other Institute of Higher learning, except where due
acknowledgement has been made in text.
• Aniket Jain
• Anuj Bhatia
• Arsh Attri
• Ayush Pandey
2|Page
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis titled ‘Estimation of primary and
secondary hydrocarbon recovery from an oil reservoir’, submitted by
ANIKET JAIN, R870217021 (500060756); ANUJ BHATIA,
R870217032 (500060916); ARSH ATTRI, R870217039 (500060642);
AYUSH PANDEY, R870217045 (500060703) to the University of
Petroleum & Energy Studies, for the award of the degree of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY in Applied Petroleum Engineering is
a bonafide record of project work carried out by them under our
supervision and guidance. The content of the thesis, in full or parts have
not been submitted to any other Institute or University for the award of
any other degree or diploma.
Mentor Placement in charge Coordinator
Dr. Anil Kumar Dr. Pushpa Sharma
Professor Professor
3|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project would not have been successful without our mentor, Dr.
Anil Kumar, who gave us an opportunity to do this work. We wish to
express our gratitude for her abundantly helpful and invaluable
assistance, support and guidance throughout the study in addition to the
resources and plans provided by her that helped us in our Project.
We would also like to thank Dr. Pushpa Sharma, our PIC, who
provided appropriate plans and resources to help us in our project, Dr.
Sunil Kumar Khare, Head of the Department of Petroleum Engineering
and Earth Sciences, who provided us with an opportunity to develop the
project.
Last but not least, we would like to thank all those without whose
support this project could not have been a successful one.
• ANIKET JAIN, R870217021(500060756)
• ANUJ BHATIA, R870217032 (500060916)
• ARSH ATTRI, R870217039 (500060642)
• AYUSH PANDEY, R870217045 (500060703)
4|Page
Table of Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................... 06
Introduction................................................................................................ 07
Objectives of the project ............................................................................ 08
Methodologies adopted.............................................................................. 09
Data Interpretation ..................................................................................... 11
Results and discussion ............................................................................... 16
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 17
Timelines and responsibility distribution .................................................. 18
References.................................................................................................. 18
Periodic Discussion with Mentor............................................................... 18
Plagiarism Report ...................................................................................... 19
5|Page
Abstract
The objective of the project is to estimate the recovery of hydrocarbons from
an oil reservoir operating under primary and secondary stages of recovery.
For our project, published data of an oilfield was used to estimate the
recovery. The main task undertaken was to predict the recovery of
hydrocarbons from the reservoir. The reservoir under study is volumetric in
nature and under-saturated initially. This means that the initial reservoir
pressure is above the bubble point pressure of the crude, and reservoir
depletion is assumed to be isothermal.
Thereafter, once the reservoir pressure reached its bubble point pressure,
waterflooding is initiated and the decline in reservoir pressure is arrested.
The recovery prediction under waterflooding comprises many steps,
including generation of fractional flow curve, Welge’s analysis, and the use
of Buckley – Leverett’s frontal displacement theory.
6|Page
Introduction:
A reservoir which is volumetric in nature implies there is no direct contact
of the reservoir with an aquifer or a primary gas cap, or any other source of
external energy. Hence, such a reservoir has only one source of energy
capable of producing hydrocarbons, which is the compressibility of
reservoir fluids and the rock. Above the bubble point pressure, this energy
source is termed ‘Compressibility drive mechanism’. This drive
mechanism, is a direct result of the fact that upon reduction in reservoir
pressure, the reservoir fluids and the rock expand due to their inherent
compressible nature.
The fluids present above the bubble point are oil and water (interstitial or
connate). Since liquids do not have high compressibility, and the rock is
hardly compressible; it is natural that this recovery mechanism is not too
efficient. In other words, large pressure reductions are required to produce
reasonable amount of hydrocarbons. Hence, reservoir pressure depletes
rapidly, and reaches its bubble point pressure very soon.
Once the reservoir pressure reaches below the bubble point, solution gas is
released from the oil. The release of solution gas increases the total
compressibility of the reservoir system (rock and fluid). This results in an
arrest in the rapid decline of reservoir pressure. The recovery of
hydrocarbons increases rapidly, when compared to the case where the
reservoir was under-saturated. This drive mechanism is termed solution gas
drive or internal gas drive. Initially, when the gas saturation is less than its
critical value, the producing GOR at the surface dips down, while at even
lower pressures, the producing GOR increases rapidly. This rapid increase
in GOR is due to the high flow rate of gas (compared to oil), due to its low
viscosity and decreasing relative permeability to oil. This decrease in
relative permeability to oil is a direct result of the continuously increasing
gas saturation throughout the reservoir. Hence due to a decline in oil rate,
the quantity of oil remaining in the reservoir is still large. Therefore,
solution drive reservoirs are optimal candidates for waterflooding.
It is possible for the reservoir pressure to stabilize during waterflooding, if
the production rate equals the injection rate, or artificial steady state is
achieved. Since, waterflooding is an immiscible displacement process, oil
recovery is substantially increased when compared to solution drive
mechanism.
7|Page
Objectives of the Project
The objectives of our project are:
• Predicting the hydrocarbon recovery from an initially under-saturated
reservoir
• To elaborate the use of the material balance equation (MBE) for
recovery estimation
• To signify the use of various data collection techniques (well testing,
logging) in the determination of the parameters for their use in the MBE
• Predicting future hydrocarbon recovery when secondary recovery
(waterflooding) is initiated
8|Page
Methodologies adopted:
The methodology adopted for the project is summarized in the following
flow chart for easier understanding:
9|Page
The methodology has been divided into two parts:
• Well test data interpretation:
1. Build up data is plotted in semi-logarithmic scale, as shown in
fig.1.The graph is plotted for Pws (shut-in wellbore pressure) against
Horner’s time ratio. The semi-logarithmic plot is divided into ETR
(Early time region), MTR (Middle time region) and LTR (Late time
region) with the help of log-log plot of pressure derivative and Δ(p).
Matching it with the best fit standard type curve.
2. From the MTR, we get the skin and permeability of the formation with
the help of the slope of the straight line MTR. By extrapolating the
tangent through MTR, we get the initial pressure (Pi) of the formation.
• Recovery estimation:
1. For undersaturated conditions the reservoir is operated under the
depletion drive mechanism. For applying material balance equation, we
get the Pressure voidage ratio (i.e. Pressure v/s NpBo)
2. The Total Effective Compressibility (Ce) and the Cumulative oil
production (Np) can be expressed as:
3. Since the pressure is related to time; we get the recovery with respect
to time.
Above the bubble point pressure, the cumulative oil and gas production
is determined from the above formulae. The initial reservoir pressure is
taken to be 6000 psia, while the bubble point pressure is 4600 psia. At the
bubble point pressure, water-flooding is initiated.
10 | P a g e
The table below depicts the cumulative oil and gas production obtained
from this reservoir while it is undersaturated. The OIIP is taken to be
131.86 MMSTB. The total compressibility is taken as 22.6*10 -6 / psia
Reservoir Pressure (psia) Bo (res bbl/STB) Boi/Bo ∆p(psia) Np(MMSTB) Rs Gp(MMSCF)
(SCF/STB) = NpRs
6000 1.5167 1 1066.85
5800 1.51618 1.000342967 200 0.596211611 1066.85 636.0681
5600 1.51566 1.000343085 400 1.192832324 1066.85 1272.575
5400 1.5172 0.998984972 600 1.78743235 1066.85 1906.922
5200 1.5164 1.000527565 800 2.384500449 1066.85 2543.904
5000 1.52 0.997828947 1000 2.973566185 1066.85 3172.344
4800 1.52092 0.997225364 1200 3.56612098 1066.85 3804.518
4600 1.52184 0.99662251 1400 4.160474477 1066.85 4438.606
11 | P a g e
Data Interpretation
• Horner’s pressure buildup analysis:
1.From the Semi Log graph (Fig.1) it seems plausible that after flow
distortion disappears at (tp+Δt)/ (Δt) =2270 or Δt =6 hours because of the
end of the characteristic lazy S shaped curve.
2.The data begin to deviate from the semi-log straight line at (tp+ Δt) / (Δt)
=274 or Δt =50 hours. This signifies the end of MTR Region.
3.MTR spans time range from Δt= 6 hours to 50 hours. Matching it with the
Ramey’s type curve, we find out the MTR region.
Pws
4600
4400
4200
4000
3800
3600
3400
4.134495856 4.65738416 4.134527718 3.356535742 3.055696799 2.755048657 2.437116093
Fig. 1
12 | P a g e
• Fractional flow curve analysis:
1.Plot fw (water fraction) and (dfw/Sw) vs. Sw on a Cartesian scale as
shown in
Figure 2. Draw a straight line from Swc and tangent to the
fw curve. Determine the coordinates of point of tangency and the
slope of the tangent (dfw/dSw) at Swf, to give:
Fig. 2
2.When constructing the water saturation profile, it should be
noted that no water saturation with a value less than Swf, i.e.,
59.6%, exists behind the leading edge of the water bank.
Assuming water saturation values in the range of Swf to (1 – Sor),
i.e., 59.6 to 75%, and calculate the water saturation profile as a
function of time by using the following equation, which is a part of the
Buckley – Leverett’s frontal advance equation:
13 | P a g e
Fig. 3: Saturation profile with respect to time
14 | P a g e
The following calculations are performed for determining the cumulative
oil, gas, and water produced at different values of total injected water.
Areal and vertical sweep efficiencies are assumed to be 100%
15 | P a g e
16 | P a g e
Results and Discussion
We started out with an under-saturated reservoir, then as the pressure
declined with time, the following results are obtained using calculations
and graphs shown above:
• By plotting build up data in semi-logarithmic scale (Pws vs Horner’s
time ratio), we get that the flow distortion disappears at Δt = 6 hours.
• End of MTR region at Δt = 50 hours. So, MTR spans time range from
Δt = 6 hours to 50 hours.
• By plotting fw and (dfw/Sw) vs. Sw on a Cartesian scale we get
coordinates of point of tangency and the slope of tangent as
(0.596,0.48) and 1.973 respectively.
• By assuming water saturation values in the range 59.6% to 75%, water
saturation profile is calculated as a function of time and is plotted in
the graph as shown above.
• Displacement efficiency at breakthrough is 0.582, means 58.2% oil is
swept away before breakthrough.
• Pore volume is calculated by assuming Injector-Producer distance(L) =
600ft and turned out to be 775,779 bbl.
• Time of breakthrough is 437 days, and Cumulative oil produced at
breakthrough is 188,611.0331 bbl.
• Cumulative water injected at breakthrough is 393,197.66 bbl and WOR
at breakthrough is 5.092 STB/STB.
17 | P a g e
Conclusion
The outcomes from this project are:
• Recovery estimation is one of the most important tasks of a reservoir
engineer. By completing this project, we were able to decipher the
minute details of this topic
• The importance of waterflooding as a source of external energy to the
reservoir is evident from the gain in hydrocarbon recoveries
• The dependence of hydrocarbon recovery on various factors, such as
areal & vertical sweep efficiencies, displacement efficiency, water
injected, and reservoir parameters was studied
• This project could be used for future academic research as a small
portion of an entire field development plan
18 | P a g e
References
1. ‘Reservoir Engineering Handbook’ – T. Ahmed (2014), Gulf
Professional Publishers
2. ‘Well Testing’ – John Lee (SPE Textbook Series)
3. ‘Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering’ – L.P. Dake, Elsevier
Timeline and periodic discussion with mentor
19 | P a g e
Plagiarism report:
20 | P a g e
