33rd IEAEOR Symposium
y p
A u g u s t
Presenter’s Name
2 6 ‐ 3 0 ,
2 0 1 2
Paper Title & Session Date
1. Jonathan Thomas*
1
2. Phil Sutcliffe**
North Sea EOR –
Accessing the Prize
*UK Department of Energy & Climate
Change
**Senergy Ltd.
Session 5: Theme E – Reservoir
Characterization
Tuesday, August 28th, 20912
North Sea EOR –
Accessing the Prize
J
Jonathan
th Th
Thomas** & Phil S
Sutcliffe**
t liff **
August 2012
*UK Department of Energy & Climate Change
**Senergy Ltd
Why do we need a UK EOR Strategy?
– Production from existing fields is
declining
– The EOR “Prize” is huge
BUT
– The “window-of-opportunity” is closing
Why do we need a UK EOR Strategy?
– EOR projects are few and far between
– Operators are generally EOR riskadverse
d
– Brown field EOR needs a new level of
inter-operator and Government
cooperation
p
Why do we need a UK EOR Strategy?
– EOR projects are few and far between
– Operators are generally EOR riskadverse
d
– Brown field EOR needs a new level of
inter-operator and Government
cooperation
p
Existing production is declining
Remaining Oil Resources at planned COP: fifty
largest UKCS fields(excluding Clair field)
2000.0
1500.0
1000.0
500.0
0.0
-500.0
-1000.0
-1500.0
Oil Remaining Resources at planned COP
Oil Possible Reserves
-2000.0
Oil 2P Reserrves
Oil Production to end 2010
-2500.0
-3000.0
Remaining Oil Resources at planned
COP: fifty largest UKCS fields
The majority (80%) of these fields are operated by 8 companies:
• Talisman (9 Fields)
• BP (8 Fields)
• CNR (7 Fields)
• Shell (5 Fields)
• TAQA (4 Fields)
• Nexen (3 Fields)
• Chevron (2 Fields)
• Apache (2 Fields)
Remaining 20% operated by Total, ConocoPhillips, Enquest, Fairfield,
Marathon & BG
Existing production is declining
The “Window of Opportunity”
2010
2025
What are we leaving behind if we
ignore EOR – “The Size of the Prize”
– DECC have re-screened
re screened EOR potential
of the entire UKCS
– The
Th Screening
S
i was d
done iin co-operation
ti
with BP & “Reality-Checked” against
detailed data for BP operated Fields
– Used a new screening
g tool taking
g into
account field maturity & current sweep.
The “SENEOR” EOR Screening Tool
The “SENEOR” EOR Screening Tool
28th August
g
2012
Phil Sutcliffe
www.senergyworld.com
What is behind it?
• It is an Excel-based EOR screening tool
which incorporates the criteria
developed by Larry Lake & co at U. of
Texas and uses many of the same
ranges.
The Tool and Screening Parameters
• The EOR process are screened against several parameters:
• Initial columns – based on the U. Of Texas criteria
• Further extended to devise additional criteria for ‘newer’ EOR
processes (though these not applied to all processes e.g.
Wettability only applied to low salinity flooding).
Hetrogeneity (0 none, 1 lot)
Injection water s
salinity
-0.05
0.01
0.2
125000
1
1
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
1
1
0
0
0.3
0.2
0
0.25
1
0.25
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
Field Maturity
Frac Clays
0.1
Result
RF to date
Amott-Harvey W
Wetting Index
59
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Acid number (m
mg KOH/g)
2.3097
0.8
0.8
0.5
1
0.5
1
0
0
1
1
1
Temperature (d
degC)
1700
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
FIELD MATURITY
EURF
1
1
1
2017
0.5
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
Oil Viscosity (cP
P)
4686
0.5
0.5
1
Permeability (m
mD)
Hydrocarbon miscible
Nitrogen and flue gas
CO2 miscible
Surfactant/polymer
Polymer
Alkaline
In situ combustion
Steam drive
Bright Water ('strong gel')
Low salinity
CDG/LPS ('weak gel')
Pressure (psia)
Field X
Depth (ft)
TECHNICAL PARAMETERS
Result
0.55
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.54545
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Scoring System
• Scoring system makes use of 4 discrete values – lower limit,
min. value,, max. value & upper
pp limit.
• > min value & < max value – scores green.
• < min value & > lower limit – scores amber
• > max. value & < upper limit – scores amber
• < lower limit or > upper limit – scores red
Traffic Light System
• Value of each parameter is scored red,
amber or green.
g
• Scores are aggregated to give an overall
red, amber or green score for each process.
• Green score is achieved by green scores
and possibly a single amber score.
• More than one amber results in amber
score.
• Single red score results in a red score.
Field Maturity
• The final 3 columns relate to field maturity & attempt to gauge how
worthwhile is EOR at this stage in field life.
• 1st column – Recovery Factor (RF) to date
• 2nd column – Estimated Ultimate Recovery Factor (EURF)
field maturity”
maturity score
• 3rd column – Ratio of above numbers – “field
• Traffic light system applied to both EURF and field maturity.
• Overall green light if EURF < 0.7 and field maturity between 0.2 &
0.7.
• Best to have baseline recovery, against which to benchmark EOR.
compromised.
• Best not leave too late or EOR potential may be compromised
• IF EURF > 0.7 by primary / secondary, probably not too much EOR
potential.
Quantitative Estimation of “Size of Prize”
•
•
•
•
Recently incorporated into screening tool
For each process require estimation of incremental oil (%OIIP)
(%OIIP).
This is stated as a range for each EOR process.
The precise quantity is related to EURF on a sliding scale, i.e.
higher incremental recovery for lower EURF & vice versa.
• Incorporated into the screening tool via a simple logical
spreadsheet
p
function.
Ranges for Incremental Recovery
• Miscible gas → 5 – 15% OIIP
• Polymer → 3 – 10% OIIP
• Surfactant /alkaline (with polymer) → 5 – 15% OIIP
• Low Salinity → 3 – 8% OIIP
• Bright water / CDG/LPS → 3 – 10% OIIP
Multiple Field Screening Tool
• Allows easy to use screening of multiple fields
• Improved end user interface enabled by visual basic
• Allows easy collation of results - “slicing
slicing & dicing”
dicing
• Focus on individual field, if required.
• Total EOR size of prize estimated as over 6 billion barrels
Field X – Screening Result
Central North Sea – EOR Breakdown by Process
CNS ‐ EOR Incremental Recovery
Low Salinity
(459 MMstb)
CDG/LPS
((1021 MMstb))
HC Miscible
(1980 MMstb)
Nitrogen/Flue
(182 MMstb)
Bright Water
(1133 MM
MMstb)
b)
Steam Drive
(165 MMstb)
Insitu
Combustion
(165 MMstb)
Polymer
((479 MMstb))
CO2 Miscible
(2002 MMstb)
Surfactant /
Polymer
(1654 MMstB)
Note: Incremental recoveries are not additive as there are often multiple processes for each field
Central North Sea Area – EOR Bubble Map Example (Low Salinity)
Scott
Telford
B ti
Beatrice
Golden Eagle
Ettrick
Buzzard
Tweedsmuir
Buchan
Kinnoull
Cyrus
Andrew
Nelson
Mungo
Gannet D
Gannet A
Monan
Madoes
Pierce
Blane
Clyde
Northern North Sea: EOR Bubble Map Example (CO2 Miscible)
Penguin Cluster
Magnus
Thistle
TernN. Cormorant Osprey
Dunlin
S. Cormorant
Heather
Lyell
Ninian
Cheviot
Alwyn
y
Columba B,D
Dunbar
Summary
• An EOR screening tool has been developed which provides high
level screening utilising a traffic-light concept to present the
results.
• An estimate of incremental recovery for each process is included
which takes account of EURF by conventional processes.
• This tool onlyy provides
p
high
g level screening.
g Further in-depth
p
analysis is recommended to fully evaluate the applicability of any
EOR process(es) on a particular field.
• The results represent a high side idealised estimate
estimate. Issues such
as facilities constraints, economics are not taken into account.
Summary - Continued
.
• The results have been presented in terms of pie charts which
show the breakdown of incremental recovery by process and also
bubble maps which show the geographical spread of potential
projects, highlighting geographical hubs.
• The overall EOR size of prize for the North Sea has been
estimated
ti t d as over 6 billion
billi b
barrels
l (1 process per fifield).
ld)
Screening results
•DECC have identified candidate assets and maps showing locations will now be used to
understand synergies
y g
•Potential EOR volumes have been estimated for each technology
•Volumes are not additive as different technologies target same oil, but application of single best
technology to each field yields a maximum recovery potential from the basin of ~ 6 bnbbls.
•For the first time
time, allows DECC to compare all North Sea assets on a like-for-like basis
EOR Process
Estimated
Recovery
(mmstb)
Miscible H
Hydrocarbon
drocarbon flood
5400
N2 & Flue gas
500
Miscible CO2
5700
Surfactant/Polymer
4800
Polymer
2100
In-situ combustion
700
Steam drive
600
Brightwater
3100
Low salinity
2000
Top 20 Central North Sea EOR candidates
Brae South
Piper
Claymore
Captain
Tartan
Blake
Scott
Beatrice
Alba
Golden Eagle
Buchan
Buzzard
Forties
Nelson
Arbroath
Mungo
Pierce
Fulmar
Clyde
Colloid Dispersal Gel (CDG)
3100
Auk
How will we use the “Size of the
Prize” database ?
– Have p
presented first outputs
p
to industry
y
– We will “reality-check” data with key
operators
– We will then select one potential “EOR
Cluster” for one EOR technique & set up
an industry led work-team to examine
potential for cooperative development
How will we use the “Size of the
Prize” database ?
– We would like the industryy to look at
potential EOR cluster development as if
they were owned by a single operator
– Identify areas where better cooperation
can leverage
l
new EOR d
developments
l
t
(e.g. using shared infrastructure)
How will we use the “Size of the
Prize” database ?
– Typical
yp
work-streams could include low
salinity EOR in the Northern North Sea or
CO2-EOR
CO2
EOR in the Central North Sea
Sea.
– Industry input is being led by Trevor
G li k (BP R
Garlick
Regional
i
l Vi
Vice P
President
id t – UK
& Norway)
What types of issue do we expect to
look at for potential EOR clusters?
– Low Salinityy EOR
• Technical workshops to raise understanding
• Shared core flood programmes
• Look at scope for shared offshore desalination plant
– CO2-EOR
• Link between UK CCS Policy & CO2-EOR
• Understanding the CCS value chain
• Facilities issues for managing offshore CO2
Clair Ridge – A Huge Project
EOR - Conclusions
Conclusion
• Offshore EOR is technically & economically
complex
• EOR prize
i iis substantial,
b t ti l but
b t a limited
li it d
window-of-opportunity remains
• Government & industry needs to work more
cooperatively
p
y to deliver North Sea EOR
Potential Areas for International
EOR
O Cooperation
C
• Shared workshops on key topics (e.g. low
salinity EOR – how it works)
• Joint conference on EOR in the North Sea,
concentrating
t ti on field
fi ld examples
l and
d scope
for cooperation
• Comparing screening methods & identifying
shared challenges
g we can jjointly
y work on.
Contact for further Questions
Jonathan Thomas
Senior Reservoir Engineer – EOR & CO2 Storage
Energy Development Unit
UK Department of Energy & Climate Change
E il jonathan.thomas.gsi.gov.uk
Email:
j
th th
i
k