Download PDF

Petroleum Science

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 550–562 | Cite as

Progression of injectivity damage with oily waste water in linear flow

Article
First Online:
Received:

Abstract

Numerous laboratory experiments and field cases show that even very small amount of oil in injected water can cause severe injectivity damage. Although injectivity decline caused by oil droplets has been studied experimentally, there is still lack of an easy-to-use and widely accepted model to predict the decline behavior. In this work, we developed an analytical model to predict the time-dependent progress of the water permeability reduction in linear flow by analyzing experimental data obtained from linear core flooding.

The model considers mass transfer of the oil phase from the produced water to the rock due capture effects by dispersion, advection and adsorption inside the rock. As the captured oil saturation increases, permeability reduces following the relative permeability drainage relationship. The reduction stabilizes when the oil saturation comes to an equilibrium value controlled by oil droplet size and injection velocity. The model is calibrated using published experimental data from prolonged core floods with oil-contaminated waste water. Theoretical runs of the model replicate all the effects known from experimental observations. Resulting from the model is a distributed change of permeability vs. time and distance from the point of injection that can be converted to the overall injectivity damage.

Key words

Produced water injection injectivity decline permeability damage linear flow model filtration model 
Download to read the full article text

References

  1. Abou-Sayed A S, Zaki K S, Wang G, et al. Produced water management strategy and water injection best practices: design, performance, and monitoring. SPE Production & Operations. 2007. 22(1): 59–68 (paper SPE 108238)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Riyamy K and Sharma M M. Filtration properties of oil-in-water emulsions containing solids. SPE Drilling & Completion. 2004. 19(3): 164–172 (paper SPE 73769)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auset M and Keller A. Pore-scale visualization of colloid straining and filtration in saturated porous media using micromodels. Water Resources Research. 2006. 42(12): 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barone F S, Rowe R K and Quigley R M. A laboratory estimation of diffusion and adsorption coefficients for several volatile organics in a natural clayey soil. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 1992. 10(3): 225–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bear J. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc. New York, 1972. 665–727Google Scholar
  6. Bennion D B, Bennion D W and Thomas F B, et al. Injection water quality —a key factor to successful waterflooding. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. 1998. 37(6): 53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brigham W E. Mixing equations in short laboratory cores. SPE Journal. 1974. 14(1): 91–99 (paper SPE 4256)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borden R C. Effective distribution of emulsified edible oil for enhanced anaerobic bioremediation. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 2007. 94(1–2): 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks R H and Corey A T. Properties of porous media affecting fluid flow. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division. 1966. 92(2):61–88Google Scholar
  10. Buret S, Nabzar L and Jada A. Emulsion deposition in porous media: impact on well injectivity. Paper SPE 113821 presented at Europec/EAGE Conference and Exhibition, June 9–12, 2008, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  11. Buret S, Nabzar L and Jada A. Water quality and well injectivity: do residual oil-in-water emulsions matter?. SPE Journal. 2010. 15(2): 557–568 (paper SPE 122060)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chatzis I and Morrow N R. Correlation of capillary number relationships for sandstone. SPE Journal. 1984. 24(5): 555–562 (paper SPE 10114)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Civan F. Reservoir Formation Damage: Fundamentals, Modeling, Assessment, and Mitigation. 2nd edition. Elsevier: Gulf Professional Publishing, 2007Google Scholar
  14. Clayton M H and Borden R C. Numerical modeling of emulsified oil distribution in heterogeneous aquifers. Ground Water. 2009. 47(2): 246–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CM G. STARS User’s Guide — Version 2011. Calgary: Computer Modelling Group Ltd., 2011Google Scholar
  16. Coats K H and Smith B D. Dead-end pore volume and dispersion in porous media. SPE Journal. 1964. 4(1): 73–84 (paper SPE 647)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cosse R. Basics of Reservoir Engineering: Oil and Gas Field Development Techniques. Paris: Editions Technip. 1993Google Scholar
  18. Detienne J L, Danquigny Y and Lacourie M E. Produced water reinjection on a low permeability carbonaceous reservoir. Paper SPE 78482 presented at Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Oct. 13–16, 2002, Abu Dhabi, United Arab EmiratesGoogle Scholar
  19. Detienne J L, Ochi J and Rivet P. A simulator for produced water re-injection in thermally fractured wells. Paper SPE 95021 presented at SPE European Formation Damage Conference, May 25–27, 2005, Scheveningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. Devereux O F. Emulsion flow in porous solids: I. a flow model. The Chemical Engineering Journal. 1974a. 7(2): 121–128Google Scholar
  21. Devereux O F. Emulsion flow in porous solids: II. experiments with a crude oil-in-water emulsion in porous sandstone. The Chemical Engineering Journal. 1974b. 7(2): 129–136Google Scholar
  22. Duan S K. Progressive Water-oil Transition Zone due to Transverse Mixing Near Wells. Ph.D. Dissertation. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. 2009Google Scholar
  23. Foster W R. A low-tension waterfiooding process. Journal of Petroleum Technology. 1973. 25(2): 205–210 (paper SPE 3803)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gupta S P and Greenkorn R A. Determination of dispersion and nonlinear adsorption parameters for flow in porous media. Water Resource Research. 1974. 10(4): 839–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hilfer R and Oren P E. Dimensional analysis of pore scale and field scale immiscible displacement. Transport in Porous Media. 1996. 22(1): 53–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hirasaki G J, Miller C A, Pope G A, et al. Surfactant based enhanced oil recovery and foam mobility control. Technical Report to DOE. 2006. DE-FC26-03NT15406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang D D, Honarpour M M and Al-Hussainy R. An improved model for relative permeability and capillary pressure incorporating wettability. Paper SCA 9718 presented at SCA International Symposium. Sep. 7–10, 1997, Calgary, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  28. Hustedt B, Zwarts D, Bjoerndal H P, et al. Induced fracturing in reservoir simulations: application of a new coupled simulator to a water flooding field example. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. 2008. 11(3): 569–576 (paper SPE 102467)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jha R K, Bryant, S and Lake, L W. Effect of diffusion on dispersion. SPE Journal. 2011. 16(01): 65–77 (paper SPE 115961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jin L and Wojtanowicz A K. Minimum produced water from oil wells with water-coning control and water-loop installations. Paper SPE 143715 presented at SPE Americas E & P Health, Safety, Security, and Environmental Conference, Mar. 21–23, 2011, Houston, TexasGoogle Scholar
  31. Jin L. A Feasibility Study of Multi-functional Wells for Water Coning Control and Disposal. Ph.D. Dissertation. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, LA, Dec. 2013Google Scholar
  32. Johnson P R and Elimelech M. Dynamics of colloid deposition in porous media: blocking based on random sequential adsorption. Langmuir. 1995. 11: 801–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ju B, Fan T, Li Z, et al. Improving water injectivity and enhancing oil recovery by wettability control using nanopowders. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 2012. 86–87: 206–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. King R W and Adegbesan K O. Resolution of the principal formation damage mechanisms causing injectivity and productivity impairment in the Pembina Cardium reservoir. Paper SPE 38870 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 5–8, 1997, San Antonio, TexasGoogle Scholar
  35. Lake L W. Enhanced Oil Recovery. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1989Google Scholar
  36. Marino M A. Distribution of contaminants in porous media flow. Water Resources Research. 1974. 10(5): 1013–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McAuliffe C D. Oil-in-water emulsions and their flow properties in porous media. Journal of Petroleum Technology. 1973a. 25(6): 727–733 (paper SPE 4369)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McAuliffe C D. Crude-oil-water emulsions to improve fluid flow in an oil reservoir. Journal of Petroleum Technology. 1973b. 25(6): 721–726 (paper SPE 4370)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKee S and Swailes D. On the derivation of the Langmuir isotherm for adsorption kinetics. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General. 1991. 24(4): L207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mendez Z D C. Flow of Dilute Oil-in-water Emulsions in Porous Media. Ph.D. Dissertation. Austin, University of Texas at Austin, TX, Dec. 1999Google Scholar
  41. Moghadasi J, Müller-Steinhagen H, Jamialahmadi M, et al. Theoretical and experimental study of particle movement and deposition in porous media during water injection. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 2004. 43(3–4): 163–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morrow N R and Chatzis I. Measurement and correlation of conditions for entrapment and mobilization of residual oil. Final Report for U.S. DOE Project, Oct. 1984. AS19-80BC10310Google Scholar
  43. Morrow N R, Chatzis I and Taber J J. Entrapment and mobilization of residual oil in bead packs. SPE Reservoir Engineering. 1988. 3(3): 927–934 (paper SPE 14423)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ohen H A, Nnabuihe L, Felber B J, et al. A systematic laboratory core and fluid analysis program for the design of a cost effective treatment and cleanup guidelines for a produced water disposal scheme. Paper SPE 35369 presented at SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Apr. 21–24, 1996, Tulsa, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  45. Pang S and Sharma M M. A model for predicting injectivity decline in water-injection wells. SPE Formation Evaluation. 1997. 12(3): 194–201 (paper SPE 28489)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Perkins T K and Johnston O C A review of diffusion and dispersion in porous media. SPE Journal. 1963. 3(1): 70–84 (paper SPE 480)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perkins T K and Johnston OC A study of immiscible fingering in linear models. SPE Journal. 1969. 9(1): 39–46 (paper SPE 2230)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ramakrishnan T S and Wasan D T. The relative permeability function for two-phase flow in porous media: effect of capillary number. Paper SPE 12693 presented at SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Apr. 15–18, 1984, Tulsa, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  49. Rege S D and Fogler H S. A network model for deep bed filtration of solid particles and emulsion drops. AIChE Journal. 1988. 34(11): 1761–1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Romero M I, Carvalho M S, Alvarado V, et al. Experiments and network model of flow of oil-water emulsion in porous media. Physical Review. 2011. E(84). 046305–1-7Google Scholar
  51. Rousseau D, Latifa H and Nabzar L. Injectivity decline from produced-water reinjection: new insights on in-depth particle-deposition mechanisms. SPE Production & Operations. 2008. 23(4): 525–531 (paper SPE 107666)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saripalli K P, Sharma M M and Bryant S L. Modeling injection well performance during deep-well injection of liquid wastes. Journal of Hydrology. 2000. 227(1–4): 41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Satter A, Shun Y M, Adams W T, et al. Chemical transport in porous media with dispersion and rate-controlled adsorption. SPE Journal. 1980. 20(3): 129–138 (paper SPE 6847)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schlumberger. Eclipse Technical Description. Feb. 2007Google Scholar
  55. Schmidt D P, Soo H and Radke C J. Linear oil displacement by the emulsion entrapment process. SPE Journal. 1984. 24(3): 351–360 (paper SPE 11333)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schramm L L. Emulsions: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry. American Chemical Society. Vol. 231, May. 1992Google Scholar
  57. Sheng J J. Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery: Theory and Practice. Elsevier: Gulf Professional Publishing. 2011Google Scholar
  58. Soo H and Radke C J. The flow mechanism of dilute, stable emulsions in porous media. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundamen. 1984a. 23(3): 342–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Soo H and Radke C J. Velocity effects in emulsion flow through porous media. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 1984b. 102(2): 462–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Soo H and Radke C J. A filtration model for the flow of dilute stable emulsions in porous media —I. theory. Chemical Engineering Science. 1986. 41(2): 263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soo H, Williams M C and Radke C J. A filtration model for the flow of dilute stable emulsions in porous media —II. parameter evaluation and estimation. Chemical Engineering Science. 1986. 41(2): 273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Spielman L A and Su Y P. Coalescence of oil-in-water suspensions by flow through porous media. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundamen. 1977. 16(2): 272–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vaz A S L Jr., Bedrikovetsky P, Furtado C, et al. Effects of residual oil on reinjection of produced water. Paper SPE 100341 presented at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Jun. 12–15, 2006, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  64. Veil J A and Clark C E. Produced water volumes and management practices in the United States. Report for U.S. DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Sept. 2009. DE-ACO2-06CH11357Google Scholar
  65. Veil J A and Quinn J J. Downhole separation technology performance: relationship to geologic conditions. Report for U.S. DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Nov. 2004. W-31-109-Eng-38Google Scholar
  66. Wang K L, Liang S C and Wang C C. Research of improving water injection effect by using active SiO2 nano-powder in the low-permeability oilfield. Advanced Materials Research. 2010. 92: 207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Xu Z, Cai J G and Pan B C. Mathematically modeling fixed-bed adsorption in aqueous systems. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A. 2013. 14(3): 155–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yadava R R, Vinda R R and Kumar N. One-dimensional dispersion in unsteady flow in an adsorbing porous medium: an analytical solution. Hydrological Processes. 1990. 4: 189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang N S, Somerville J M, Todd A C, et al. An experimental investigation of the formation damage caused by produced oily water injection. Paper SPE 26702 presented at the Offshore Europe, Sept. 7–10, 1993, Aberdeen, United Kingdom Pet.Sci.(2014)11:563–568Google Scholar

Copyright information

© China University of Petroleum (Beijing) and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.InPetro Technologies Inc.HoustonUSA
  2. 2.Craft & Hawkins Department of Petroleum EngineeringLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations