Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Simultaneous Water and Gas Injection Pilot at the Kuparuk River Field, Reservoir Impact

1995; Linguagem: Inglês

10.2523/30726-ms

Tianmin Ma, J. Rugen, R. Stoisits, G. Voungren,

Reservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods

Simultaneous Water and Gas Injection Pilot at the Kuparuk River Field, Reservoir Impact T.D. Ma; T.D. Ma Arco Alaska Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar J.A. Rugen; J.A. Rugen Arco Alaska Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar R.F. Stoisits; R.F. Stoisits Arco Alaska Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar G.K. Voungren G.K. Voungren Improved Recovery Technologies Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 1995. Paper Number: SPE-30726-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/30726-MS Published: October 22 1995 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Ma, T.D., Rugen, J.A., Stoisits, R.F., and G.K. Voungren. "Simultaneous Water and Gas Injection Pilot at the Kuparuk River Field, Reservoir Impact." Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 1995. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/30726-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractImmiscible water-alternating-gas injection has effectively managed produced gas at the Kuparuk River Field, increasing field oil rate and recovery. Although IWAG economics are very favorable, a pilot study was undertaken to ascertain whether the separate gas injection system can be eliminated by simultaneously injecting water and gas in waterflood lines.Static mixers were found to be necessary to disperse gas in a multiphase mixture flowing through a network of pipes. However, scale-up criteria for gas dispersing static mixers in multiphase pipe networks require additional refinement.During the pilot, loss of injection rate was observed as the gas fraction in the injection mixture increased and the surface injection pressure was kept stable at about 2800 psi. Examination of Well 2D-16 data suggests that the observed rate loss was more likely due to the lower bottom-hole pressures than the relative permeability effects expected of two-phase flow in porous media.Reservoir simulation done to support the pilot project showed that simultaneous water-and-gas injection should provide better control of gas mobility than IWAG. This resulted in increased oil recovery and more steady gas production. During the typical IWAG process, the magnitude and the cyclic nature of GOR responses have caused problems for gas handling at the field facilities.IntroductionThe Kuparuk River Field (Fig. 1) is the second most prolific oil field in the United States, currently producing about 300,000 BOPD With a cumulative production of 1.2 billion barrels, Kuparuk is one of only fourteen U.S. oil fields to surpass the billion barrel mark. Oil production has been constrained by the facility gas handling limits, presenting a unique challenge for a field without an original gas cap or access to a gas market.Immiscible water-alternating-gas (IWAG) injection has effectively managed produced gas at Kuparuk boosting the field oil rate and recovery. Champion and Shelden in 1987 showed that trapped gas would alter reservoir fluid mobilities and result in improved waterflood sweep efficiency. Ma and Youngren in 1994 provided additional support to their claim, and pointed out other observed IWAG benefits: higher production rates, reduced water handling costs, better pressure support, and the use of injected gas to confirm well interactions.Currently, 21 of 42 drill sites at Kuparuk are on either IWAG or water-alternating-miscible gas (MWAG) injection. (A typical drill site is four square miles, with eight producers and eight injectors on 160-acre well spacing.) IWAG expansion will likely be continued as the existing IWAG drill Sites recycle more gas, forcing high gas-oil ratio (GOR) wells to be shut in. There have been ongoing efforts to minimize IWAG expansion costs and to mitigate gas recycle in the existing IWAG areas.Simultaneous water and gas injection (SWAG) was identified as an option that could cut both capital and operating costs and improve gas handling and oil recovery. If feasible, SWAG would eliminate the need for separate water and gas injection lines to the drill sites and gas distribution systems to the wells. It would reduce operating costs as WAG conversions become unnecessary. It would also improve sweep efficiency, resulting in improved gas handling and oil recovery.P. 259 Keywords: enhanced recovery, injection, waterflood, injection rate, flow in porous media, gas injection pilot, glr, drill site, swag, upstream oil & gas Subjects: Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, Improved and Enhanced Recovery, Flow in porous media This content is only available via PDF. 1995. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.