How to maximize the value of mature HC fields?

Workshop

Budapest, 18. November 2010.

Society of Petroleum Engineers

1
 BrightWater ®
Technology
In-Depth Conformance
 The BrightWater History

The BrightWater concept began in 1997 as a BP idea

It was considered high-risk / high-reward and was

proposed as a Joint Venture project to the “MoBPTeCh”
consortium.

• 1997 - Subsequently adopted by Mobil, BP, Texaco,

Chevron as a viable project
• 1997 - Nalco was selected and agreed to join the project
as an equal contributor
• 2001-2004 - MoBPTeCh becomes BP, Chevron and Nalco
• 2007 - Consortium completed the BrightWater project
and disbanded
 Changing the Water Sweep
Pattern
Oil Producer
Water is injected
BrightWater
and sweeps only
® is
a
injected
portion of which
the
blocks the
oil in flow of
place
Water Injector water to
BrightWater® at sub-micron previously swept
form before injection areas and forces
the water to
sweep new oil
from the injection
well to the
producer

BrightWater® after application

into the reservoir
 Particle Transition to Block

 The nano-particles are inert

• Give virtually no viscosity or adsorption during injection
• Much smaller than the pore throats they move through

 The expanded particles are “sticky”,

creating a high viscous (slow mobility) slug
and/or block
• They have increased solution viscosity, showing they
now interact with each other
• Propagated particles restrict water flow rate in the
reservoir
• Restriction can be permanent showing they are
interacting with the porous rock
 Nano-Particle:
Properties and Characteristics
• Manufactured particles average 0.1 micron in diameter
- Typical controlling pore throat size is much bigger than this
for permeability of 500 mD or higher

• Density and viscosity of the BrightWater® technology as

supplied (particles plus carrier fluid) is close to that of seawater

• During injection the dispersant strips off the carrier phase and
ensures the particles are kept separated

• The Brownian Motion keeps the particles from settling prior to

expansion in the targeted thief zone

• With the increase in temperature, the reversible crosslink

breakdown and allow the particle to quickly expand,
agglomerate and adhere to the rock formation, thereby
increasing viscosity and creating a viscous slug/block
 Pore Throat Radius and Distribution
from Capillary Pressure
1
K = 3,917 mD
K = 1,275 mD 0.9
K = 0.04 mD
0.8

Pore Throat Radius Distribution

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Pore Throat Radius (m)

 BrightWater Mechanism – Pore Scale
1 to 10 micron diameter

0.01 to 1 micron
diameter
Reversible
crosslinks

Permanent
crosslinks

•The particle conformation expands

as the crosslinks reverse

•Low levels of permanent

crosslinker keep the particle from
“decomposing”
•Particles aggregate
Representation of 5 micron particle in a pore throat
 Reaction in the Reservoir

BrightWater® at sub-
micron form before
injection
Diluted, inert
BrightWater® Activated
(after injection)
Time and Temperature

BrightWater® after
application into the
reservoir
 BrightWater - What’s Different
 BrightWater material is NOT a classic viscous polymer or
bulk gel
 Injects like water and is not damaged by shear during
injection
 Deployed with conventional chemical injection equipment
and existing injection system
 Enables EOR offshore applications
 No anticipated risk to reservoir or environment
 Well shutdowns are not required
 Restricts flow after popping
 One treatment may last from several months to years
 BrightWater Grades (pH > 6)

 Product Grades
- EC9368AHigh Temp. (180-250°F) (80-120°C)
- EC9378AMed. to High (150-200°F) (70-90°C)
- EC9398ALow to Med. (120-160°F) (50-70°C)
- EC9404ALow Temp. (90-150°F) (30-65°C)
- EC9408AVery Low Temp. (70-90°F) (20-30°C)
 Dispersing Surfactant
- EC9360A For Fresh and Sea Water
- EC9641A For Heavy Brine (70K-150K ppm)
- EC9660A Winterized (Freeze-Thaw
recoverable)
 BrightWater - How to Design?

Design Steps
• Candidate selection / rejection criteria
• Lab evaluation and tests
• BW application design
• Simulation and economic evaluation
• Field operation design
• Post-treatment monitoring and
evaluation
 Candidate Selection Criteria

• Available movable oil at least 10% OOIP

• Early water breakthrough to high water-cut
• A high permeability contrast is desirable
• Reservoir temperature between 15° and 120oC
• Sandstone reservoirs
• Injection water pH > 6
• Expected tracer transit time >30 days
• Injection water salinity under 150,000 ppm
• Minimal natural fracture
 Candidate Rejection Criteria

• Uniform formation or remaining mobile oil is

<10%
• Injector is completed in an aquifer
• Very low permeability thief
• Fractured reservoirs, not carbonates (yet)
• Very slow water transit time (years)
• Highly acidic systems (pH < 6)
• Very viscous oil
 Treatment Design

• Determine the time between injection and activation. The

ideal case is to activate / place the BrightWater halfway
between the injector and producer (Injection/Production
and/or tracer data)

• Determine the temperature (profile) that BrightWater will see

in the target area (temperature logs & simulation)

• Use best matched grade of BrightWater

• Run bottle tests/ slim tubes/ core floods in lab at reservoir

condition (Brine, pH, Temperature, etc.) to confirm viscosity /
Resistance and Residual Resistance Factors
 Estimating Channel Volume and Water
Breakthrough from Injection/Production Data
Temperature Front (Profile)
• Temperature front simulation to support
BrightWater grade selection
 Case History –
BP’s Milne Point
North Slope, Alaska
SPE 121761
 The Situation

A well isolated hydraulic

unit and a clearly defined
thief zone
 The Situation (Cont.)
 Recovery Factor only 20% at a water cut of 90%
 Formation temperature is 80°C (175°F) and the
injection water is 43°C (110°F) at the
perforations
 Assumed that water cycling is cause of low
recovery
 Simulated and Chemical Tracers confirmed a
breakthrough time of 12-18 months
 Inject 60 m3 of BrightWater Particle with 30 m3
of dispersing surfactant over 21 days
Pumping the Particulate System
Injection Rates
Injectivity Reduction
Production Response
Production Response Cont.
WOR Trend After BrightWater
 Conclusions

 BrightWater treatments started late

2004 and Incremental oil production was
seen by mid-2005
 Economics suggest incremental oil
production under 5 $/bbl
 2 other treatments performed in 2007
with more planned
 Agreement between field results and lab
and simulation work was reasonably
good
 Publications on BrightWater
 Journal of Petroleum Technology
• “Improving Sweep Efficiency at the Mature Koluel Kaike and Piedra
Clavada Waterflooding Projects, Argentina”, Jan. 2008
 Oil & Gas Journal
• “Operators develop, implement new down hole technologies”, Jan.
2008
 Petroleum News
• “BP exploring in known ANS fields”, Nov. 2007
 Frontiers, BP Publication
• “Pop Goes the Polymer”, Dec. 2007
 The BP Magazine
• “The Bright Side of Technology”, Issue 4, 2007
 15th European Symposium on IOR, Paris, April 2009
• Bright Water™ Sweep Improvement From The Lab To The Field
 SPE Papers:
• 84897, 89391, 107923, 121761, 129732 ,129967, 131299,
&136140
 Contact Information

Main Office Line – (303) 923-6440

2452 S. Trenton Way, Suite M
Denver, CO USA 80231

Pat Neal, Global Sales Manager

pmneal@tiorco.com

Thomas Altmann, Regional Manager

taltmann@nalco.com

Lab tests Simulation

The Science of Enhanced Oil Recovery
Lab Studies
 BrightWater Lab. Studies:
Bottle Tests
Viscosity measured at 25°C
EC9408A (5000 ppm), SSW @25C EC9408A (5000 ppm), SSW @40C
35 40
30 35

Viscosity (cp)
Viscosity (cp)

25 30
25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5
5
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 10 20 30 40
Time (day)
Time (day) pH=7 pH=8

EC9408A (5000 ppm)SSW @50C EC9408A (5000 ppm) SSW @65C

40
35 50
Viscosity (cp)

Viscosity (cp)
30 40
25
20 30
15 20
10
5 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (day) Time (day)
pH=7 pH=8 pH=7 pH=8
 BrightWater Lab. Studies:
Bottle Tests
 Measure viscosity to confirm activation time and level
of expansion with time and temperature
Viscosity measured at 25 °C
EC9404A, 2% (5500 ppm), Aging Temp 65 C, Fresh Water
(~5000 ppm TDS)
100

90

80

70
Viscosity (cp)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (day)
 BrightWater Lab. Studies:
Bottle Tests
 BW viscosity is sensitive to temperature, brine salinity and
hardness, and shear rate
 BrightWater Lab. Studies:
Adsorption Tests
 Modified bottle tests are performed to obtain the static
adsorption data for BrightWater on any media

 Solid phase will be added to the bottle in contact with

BrightWater solution

 Solutions will be monitored for viscosity and concentration

 Compared with blank solutions, adsorption values are

obtained using simple material balance equations
 BrightWater Lab. Studies:
Adsorption Tests
 Concentration of BrightWater solution is obtained by a
photometric technique (Polyacrylamide-Starch-Cadmium
Iodide method)
 Effects of Different Rock Mineralogy on
BrightWater Performance
1500 ppm EC9404A Viscosity Data
8
1500 ppm Blank
7
1500 ppm + Sand

6 1500 ppm + Sand/Glauc

1500 ppm + Glauconite

5 1500 ppm + Crushed Core
Viscosity (cp)

0
17-Feb 19-Feb 21-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 27-Feb 1-Mar 3-Mar 5-Mar
Date
 BrightWater Flow in Porous Media

 Slim tube / core flooding are performed to evaluate the

BrightWater performance in porous media
 After constructing the slim tube at a representative
permeability close to that of thief zone in the reservoir :
1. Base permeability and pressure drops will be measured
for each section
2. A % PV slug of BW will be injected at high rates into the
sandpack at injection temperature
3. BW slug will be pushed through the first section of
sandpack
4. As soon as the end of the slug leaves the first section, the
flow rate will be dropped to ~ 1 ft/day and the
temperature will be raised to reservoir temperature
5. Monitor for resistance and residual resistance factors
BrightWater Flow in 2 Darcy Sand Pack
 Slim Tube Test Results:
Interpretation (RRF Per Section)

RRF changes after

several PV of water
injected through
section 1 & 2
 Slim Tube Test Results:
Verification of Polymer Adsorption
Experiment to support a recent BW Treatment in
Africa

4 PV

• It is known from the chemistry of polymers that they exhibit a

larger viscosity in fresh water compared with high salinity waters
 Numerical
Simulation Studies
Modeling and Simulation
•Reservoir or conceptual models
 Reservoir Modeling Approach
 Simple permeability
(transmissibility) reduction of grid
blocks based on temperature front
and tracer traveling times (not
moving slug between injector and
producer).
 Polymer gelation as a function of
temperature and time. However,
gelation function (equation
parameters) is not fully explicit.
 Permeability reduction is a function
of gel adsorption and concentration.
Possible retention, filtration and
dilution effects are not necessarily
considered.
 The bigger the block (permeability
reduction) the higher the recovery.
 Reservoir Modeling Approach (Cont.)
 Permeability reduction / mobility control
in most permeable (thief zone) layer
assuming:
• Viscous flow of BW (Like Resistance
factor - RF or residual resistance
factor - RRF in Polymer flooding or
Colloidal Dispersion Gels - CDG’s).
• Define rock regions operating under
different flow regimes (Rel. perms
per region or rock type modifying
water mobility). Impact of BW on oil
mobility is unknown.
 Integrate thermal and chemical effects
based on correlations obtained from lab
data (Ongoing efforts to avoid using
Restart options)
 Base Case Model Results
F

Temperature profile at the start of Permeability reduction factor after

BW injection (t=600 days) 300 days of BW injection (t=900
days)

Kg/
m3

BW adsorption after 300 days of

BW injection (t= 900 days)
 Kv/Kh Sensitivity

Kg/
Kg/ m3
m3

Kv /Kh = 0.03 Kv /Kh = 0.5

BW adsorption after 300 days of BW injection (t= 900 days)

 How to Improve BW effect in
Reservoirs with Large kv/kh
BW Conc. = 10000 Poly, 1000 CL BW Conc. = 20000 Poly, 2000 CL
Kv/kh=0.5 Kv/kh=0.5

Permeability reduction factor after 300 days of BW injection (t=900 days)

 Reservoir Modeling:
Sensitivity Analysis
 Common sensitivity analysis of BW performance predictions include:
• BW concentration and treatment volumes
• Polymer (Gel) adsorption/retention (Reversible vs. Irreversible)
• RF and RRF
• BW dilution effects:
 Vertical (wellhead vs. selective Injection)
 Volumetrically (within the thief zone – Up-scaling effects)
• Temperature profile (early vs. late BW expansion)
• Kv/Kh
• Injection/production rates (e.g. impact of BHP)

 Validate BW treatment design against reservoir performance (history match

BW test) to identify key tuning parameters