Actual production rate vs estimated production rate for producer 7: the green line shows the actual production and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for Case 2. Actual production rate vs estimated production rate for producer 8: the green line shows the actual production and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for Case 2. Actual production rate vs estimated production rate for producer 9: The green line shows the actual production and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for Case 2.
Actual production rate vs. estimated production rate for manufacturer 7: green line shows actual production and red line the CRM modeled production profile for case 3. Actual production rate vs. estimated production rate for manufacturer 9: green line shows actual production , and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for Case 4.
INTRODUCTION
Capacitance – Resistance Model
- CRM Development
- Connectivity
- Applications of CRM
Schematic representation of the impact of an injection rate signal on total production response for an arbitrary reservoir control volume in the CRM (Sayarpour, (2009)). The knowledge presented provides an interpretation of the reservoir behavior and response to the control variables in the secondary and tertiary recovery processes. During the existence of a single oil field, the consistency of the oil has waxed and waned due to improvements in the recovery phase.
As a tertiary recovery process, additional oil recovery is achieved by mobilizing the oil in the previously contained reservoir. This map shows how the flow is distributed over the pore volume associated with each producer, i.e., the proportion of flow coming from a given percentage of the pore volume.
Tracer Flow Testing
- Conductivity
Using tracers with different molecular sizes and diffusivity rates, one can estimate the fracture matrix area for mass exchange. The frictional resistance is determined by the geometry of the fracture network, the geometry of the fracture surface (including fracture coating, flaw gauge and other properties), and the fluid viscosity. Because channeling affects not only the hydraulic characteristics of the fracture but also its retention capacity, it is important to understand how channeling affects fractures.
When studying a three-dimensional fracture network, according to the literature, the geometry of individual fractures in relation to the degree of connection of the fracture network has a significant impact on the hydraulic conductivity of the rock volume as a whole. In fact, the geometry of the flow channel is significantly more complicated than the geometry of the hydraulically conducting components.
CRM and Tracer Flow Testing
Produced tracer concentration for each injector-producer pair (𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑗) is then determined using the tracer model equations introduced earlier. Running each model separately, one at a time, is a simple way to integrate the tracking model into CRM. The calculated gains from the CRM are then fed into the tracer model, which is used to measure and match produced tracer concentration by calculating the tracer model parameters.
Concurrent matching requires data to be matched simultaneously for both the CRM and the tracking models. Simultaneous matching considers the gains as matching parameters in both the CRM and the tracker model, unlike serial matching, which fixes the gains entered into the tracker model.
Problem statement
How useful will CRM's conventional workflow be to emulate tracer flow testing? What effect will be demonstrated in case of introducing additional restrictions or their changes on interwell connectivity.
Objective
Outline
METHODOLOGY
CRM is sensitive to available data and it is not recommended to have data gaps because misinterpretation can occur. To overcome this problem, the average of the available data was used to fill in the gaps when wells are temporarily closed for several periods for multiple reasons. In order to capture tracer flow over a short and long time period, the sampling frequency was increased during the early stages of the investigation;.
The tracer response curves make it easy to determine tracer recovery percentages as well as the amount of fluid moved between each injector and producer pair using a single tracer response curve. Due to the existence of high-permeability sections, higher conductivity can be detected between the injector-producer pairs when the tracer breakthrough occurs early; however, when the tracer breakthrough occurs late, the connection is weaker. Generalized reduced gradient is an iterative numerical method for solving optimization problems, which allows determining the "conditional" extremum of the objective function (minimum or maximum value).
A portion of the injected fluid from each injector may flow out of the reservoir and not reach a manufacturer. It is also possible that water reaches the producer not from the injectors, but from other sources such as an aquifer, so fij can be higher than 1 for a producer j. To trace the source of the produced water and the connection between injectors and producers, the tracer test was carried out in some injectors.
In this field, a given volume of a labeled fluid was injected and pushed back to the production wells by a continuous displacing water flood. The observed tracer concentration versus time at each producer was analyzed to evaluate the influence of the water flood on the producing wells. These agents do not affect the properties of the flow and do not react chemically with oil.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Synthetic field
Then, in a later period of time, the breakthrough of the tracking asset reaches its peak, which is also clearly visible on the CRM. Actual production rate vs. estimated production rate for Manufacturer 2: green line shows actual production and red line the CRM modeled production profile for case 1. Actual production rate vs. estimated production rate for Manufacturer 4: green line shows actual production , and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for Case 3.
Actual production rate vs estimated production rate for producer 8: the green line shows the actual production and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for Case 3. Actual production rate vs estimated production rate for producer 9: the green line shows the actual production rate production and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for Case 3. Actual production rate vs estimated production rate for producer 1: the green line shows the actual production and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for Case 4.
Actual production rate vs. estimated production rate for producer 2: the green line shows the actual production and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for Case 4. Actual production rate vs. estimated production rate for producer 3: the green line shows the actual production and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for Case 4. Actual production rate versus estimated production rate for producer 4: the green line shows the actual production and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for Case 4.
Actual production rate vs. estimated production rate for manufacturer 5: green line shows actual production and red line shows CRM-modeled production profile for case 4. Actual production rate vs. estimated production rate for manufacturer 6: the green line shows the actual production value and the red line shows the production profile modeled by CRM for case 4. Actual production rate vs. estimated production rate for producer 7: the green line shows the actual production and the red line shows the profile of production modeled by CRM for Case 4.
Actual production rate vs. estimated production rate for producer 8: the green line shows the actual production and the red line the CRM modeled production profile for case 4. It also has the physical meaning of the fact that the earlier a breakthrough occurs, the greater the connectivity between wells.
Real field
It was discovered that injection well No. 11 had an inter-well connection running southwest of the area. An increase in mD mass transfer from tracer agent was detected in the permeability filter systems depending on the amount of removed indication present. After preprocessing the data, the CRM was applied to model the history, as shown in Figure 77 – 92.
Total production matching with real field CRM for producer 6 (well #34); green – actual production, red – estimated production. Total production matching with real field CRM for producer 7 (well #37); green – actual production, red – estimated production. Total production matching with real field CRM for producer 9 (well #57); green – actual production, red – estimated production.
This situation describes a series of situations, one in which there are problems between wells in one zone, and another in which there are no problems in the other zone. These two figures give a general insight into the connectivities obtained from the CRM and tracker tests. According to Figure 93, the well connections for the wells adjacent to injection well I11 are still problems and are very different from the data obtained by the service company.
An overall picture of fluid behavior in porous media can still be obtained from CRM even when individual wells appear to be unconnected when in reality they are connected. This is because CRM shows the absence of connections between certain wells when they are actually connected. In addition, according to the field service company, there are difficulties with the filtration system in the northeast direction from injection well №11, and CRM detected somewhat abnormally high values in the same area with problems with the filtration system.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Blended CO2 EOR and Storage Optimization Using Heuristic Methods Combined with Capacitance/Resistance and Fractional Flow Models Gentil.
