Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
The Leading Edge Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Leading Edge; April 2003; v. 22; no. 4; p. 332-339; DOI: 10.1190/1.1572086
© 2003 Society of Exploration Geophysicists
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Larue, D. K.
Right arrow Articles by Yue, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

How stratigraphy influences oil recovery

A comparative reservoir database study concentrating on deepwater reservoirs

D. K. Larue and Yongjun Yue

Chevron Texaco Exploration and Production Technology Company, San Ramon, California, U.S.

Corresponding author: DKLA@ChevronTexaco.com

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

The degree to which the depositional environment influences recovery from a reservoir is a topic of some importance, but one that has not been thoroughly addressed. One of the most widely known and cited examples relating stratigraphy to recovery efficiency is the study of Tyler and others (1984; Tyler, 1988, updated in 1991 by Tyler and Finley). In this study, 450 major Texas petroleum reservoirs were evaluated (Galloway et al., 1983). They showed that average recovery efficiency could be closely tied to depositional environment and drive mechanism (Figure 1). Reservoirs composed of fluvial rocks with water drive, or solution gas drive, or gas cap expansion may have recovery efficiencies of 35–50%, whereas barrier strand-plain reservoirs with gas-cap expansion may be characterized by recovery efficiencies of 50–70%. However, because they plot recovery efficiency against drive mechanism and depositional system, it is still unclear which of these factors has more important influence on recovery efficiency. It is also unclear how other factors influenced recovery efficiencies—for example, fluid properties, permeability architecture, well count, or well placement.


Figure Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)
View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Plot from Tyler and Finley (1991) showing the relationship between recovery efficiency and drive mechanism and depositional environment.

 
Thakur and Satter (1998) presented an integrated engineering approach to analyze factors affecting recovery efficiency, mostly by waterflooding. On page 1 of their book, they noted that recovery efficiency for the liquid and rock expansion recovery mechanism typically averages 3%, whereas recovery efficiency by solution gas drive is on average 20%, gas cap drive is 25%, water drive is 50% and gravity drainage is 60%. In their studies, they tested sensitivities of a number of factors to waterflooding through reservoir simulation (Figure 2). Key factors they discuss are the importance of permeability heterogeneity, fluid mobility ratio, Kv/Kh (the ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability), and . . . [Full Text of this Article]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Petroleum GeoscienceHome page
D. K. Larue and F. Friedmann
The controversy concerning stratigraphic architecture of channelized reservoirs and recovery by waterflooding
Petroleum Geoscience, May 1, 2005; 11(2): 131 - 146.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Society of Exploration Geophysicists