SPE 84359
Voidage Replacement Ratio Calculations in Retrograde Condensate to Volatile Oil
Reservoirs Undergoing EOR Processes
Clark, Robert A. Jr., SPE, BP; Ludolph, Brian, BP
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5 – 8 October 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Voidage replacement ratio (VRR) is commonly used to
measure the rate of change in reservoir energy. VRR
optimization is often an important factor in planning and
managing enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects. VRR is
easily calculated in black oil waterflooding operations.
However, in reservoirs impacted significantly by
compositional effects, calculation of VRR is nontrivial.
A reservoir that grades from retrograde condensate to
volatile oil presents tremendous difficulties in determining
VRR. The large vertical relief and associated steep
compositional gradients commonly present in thrust belt
regions further exacerbates this problem. An excellent
example of this problem is the high-pressure miscible gas
injection project in Boquerón Field (El Furrial Trend in
Venezuela). At Boquerón, the saturation pressure varies with
depth from 7,700 psia to 3,300 psia.
Typically, an equation of state (EOS) is constructed to
model the phase behavior variability in compositional
systems. In compartmentalized reservoirs, the initial
composition can also vary areally. However, neither EOS
programs nor typical compositional numerical models
calculate and/or report VRR.
This paper presents a method (developed for Boquerón
Field) to compute VRR for compositional systems using a
compositional full field model (CFFM) and an EOS program.
The field is broken up into major pressure compartments in
the model. Regional compositions, pressures, injection gas
volumes (surface units), and volumes-in-place (reservoir
barrels) are extracted from the model output at each time step.
An EOS program is used to compute the surface quantity of
injection gas theoretically required to maintain constant
pressure. This quantity is used, in conjunction with the
amount of gas actually injected, to calculate VRR for each
region and time step. The numerical simulator can be updated
on a regular basis and used as a surveillance tool to monitor
reservoir energy changes and to satisfy regulatory reporting
requirements. It is also used as an optimization tool to
manage EOR operations.
Introduction
Voidage replacement ratio in secondary recovery/EOR
operations is fundamental to understanding the balance
between injection and production. This balance profoundly
influences the pressure distribution within the reservoir. In
turn, the reservoir pressure (which provides energy to the
system) impacts the production rates of wells in the field.
Pressure also influences precipitation of asphaltenes and
paraffins in some reservoirs, tubulars and wellheads,
condensation of liquids in the pore spaces, formation of a
secondary gas cap, etc. The primary goal of most voidage
replacement operations is to replenish the energy in a reservoir
to a degree that the producing wells yield hydrocarbons at
economical rates, overall recovery of the hydrocarbon
resource is improved, and the various adverse side effects
indicated above are mitigated. This goal is in harmony with
the ultimate goal of extracting more oil from the ground while
making a profit for the operating company.
Historically, waterflooding a reservoir has been widely
used to augment/replenish reservoir energy. Calculating VRR
in waterfloods is simple and can often be roughly
approximated by contrasting the amount of fluids produced
against the amount of water injected, either on a periodic basis
or cumulatively. Using formation volume factors in this
calculation improves accuracy, but a useful approximation of
the overall energy/material balance can be achieved with a
spreadsheet and some historical data.
Retrograde condensate and volatile oil systems present
unique difficulties in VRR calculations due to the
continuously changing fluid expansion factors. High vertical
relief reservoirs with large hydrocarbon columns exacerbate
this challenge. Fluid property measurements (PVT tests) need
to be conducted on fluid samples collected at various depths in
the reservoir, to model the changing phase behavior of the
fluid with depth. Fields with these characteristics are often
found in the highly complex thrust belt regions of the world.
Voidage Replacement Ratio Theory
Basic Concept The primary purpose of any EOR operation
is to balance reservoir voidage by injecting a replacement fluid
into the reservoir with the goal of maintaining or increasing
2 SPE 83459
production rates and/or ultimate recovery. Reservoir pressure
effectively represents the energy within a given system. The
injectant replenishes reservoir energy that has declined due to
the withdrawal of hydrocarbons and water from the reservoir.
This is typically achieved via waterflooding and/or gas
injection. Injecting some supporting fluid at volumes that
exceed the voidage from the system results in a VRR over 1
(increasing reservoir pressure) while injecting volumes which
fall below system voidage results in a VRR of less than 1
(decreasing reservoir pressure).
In addition to replenishing reservoir energy (enabling the
target hydrocarbons to flow to the wellbores), water and gas
flooding improves recovery by fluid displacement, and by
achieving miscibility with the oil in the case of miscible gas
injection. Operational problems such as asphaltene
precipitation (often occurring when the reservoir pressure falls
below the saturation pressure), liquid dropout in gaseous parts
of the reservoir, etc., can be minimized by maintaining the
reservoir above the saturation pressure. Often, a target
pressure is defined for the project to minimize these
operational problems and maximize recovery. Thus, VRR can
be used for both important reservoir surveillance
measurements and operational planning.
Waterflooding Calculating the overall material balance
within a reservoir undergoing waterflooding operations
provides a good method for evaluating VRR. The injection
water, converted to reservoir barrels, balances the oil, water,
and gas produced from the reservoir (measured in reservoir
barrels). This is because water and hydrocarbons are
essentially immiscible. A simple equation for the calculation
of VRR is:
VRR = Vinj/Vprod………………………………………...(1)
In a typical black oil system, Vprod is the volume produced,
and Vinj is the volume injected, both converted to reservoir
units. For a typical waterflooding operation producing above
the saturation pressure, this equation can be rewritten as:
VRR = Qwinj*Bw/(Qo*Βο + Qw*Bw)……….…………….(2)
If the reservoir pressure is below the saturation pressure, a
more rigorous material balance calculation is necessary as gas
evolves from the liquid phase.
Gas Pressure Maintenance (Immiscible) With first
contact or multi-contact miscible gas injection, gas dissolves
into the oil resulting in swelling of the oil. Alternatively, the
system can be immiscible, resulting in the formation or
expansion of a gas phase. For immiscible gas injection in
reservoirs at or below the saturation pressure, the
equation becomes:
VRR = Qginj*Bg/[Qo*Βο + Qw*Bw + (Qg*-Rs*Qo)* Bg]…(3)
Rock compressibility, overpressure complications, etc., can be
incorporated into this calculation but the need for this
refinement is generally of limited practical value. A detailed
analytical solution can incorporate such refinements if desired.
VRR Calculations in Volatile Oil/Condensate
Systems
The factors that complicate the calculation of VRR in a
volatile oil or gas condensate system can include some or all
of the following:
1. In miscible gas injection EOR processes, some or
all of the injected gas is soluble in and swells the
hydrocarbon system, a fundamental difference with
immiscible gas injection systems.
2. Volatile oil and retrograde gas condensate systems
commonly exhibit compositional gradients. The
formation volume factors vary with depth, pressure
and temperature. This can be a significant problem
if the reservoir is thick and/or has high
vertical relief.
3. The formation volume factors can vary areally due
to compartmentalization.
4. The formation volume factor varies with time as the
reservoir pressure drops below the
saturation pressure.
5. The HCPV (hydrocarbon pore volume) may not
change significantly with depletion or injection in
the absence of an aquifer influx. The molar
composition can change even if the HCPV
remains constant.
6. The injection gas composition is often significantly
different than the produced
hydrocarbon composition.
7. Density variations over time may result from
condensation or vaporization of the hydrocarbons.
If an operator knew the change in pressure resulting from
injecting a given composition of gas into a hydrocarbon
system at any point in time, the amount of injection gas
required to balance the production from the system could be
calculated. However, the change in pressure with
composition, at constant volume, is not normally reported
from numerical simulators.
A compositional numerical simulator can be employed to
calculate the voidage at any given time from any
predetermined region, cell, fault block, etc. Typical
compositional simulators can predict the compositions of the
hydrocarbons in the various cells over time and thus over
changes in pressure. By defining Vreq as the injection volume
needed to balance voidage (that is, where VRR = 1), Equation
1 can be rewritten as:
VRR = Vinj/Vreq……..…………………………………...(4)
For the purposes of this calculation, two cases are
considered using a compositional numerical simulator.
Over-Injection Case In this case, the pressure at the
current CFFM time step (time step refers to monthly reporting
interval, not simulator interval) exceeds the pressure of the
previous time step in a given region. In other words, more gas
has been injected than required to balance voidage. This
amount of excess gas is defined as Gxs. The amount actually
injected between the previous time step and the current time
step is Ginj, while the amount of gas required to exactly
SPE 83459
balance voidage is Greq. This relationship to Gxs can be
expressed as:
Gxs = Ginj - Greq…………..……………………………....(5)
In the case of gas injection,
Vreq = Greq……………………………………………….(6)
And:
Vinj = Ginj…………………………………..………...….(7)
Therefore, VRR can be expressed as:
VRR = Ginj /(Ginj - Gxs)…………………………..….......(8)
This equation possesses the following limiting conditions:
• VRR goes to 1 as Gxs goes to zero, voidage is
exactly balanced,
• VRR approaches infinity as Gxs approaches Ginj,
as more and more injection volume is in excess of
that needed to maintain voidage, and
• VRR goes to 0 as Ginj goes to zero.
For example, VRR equals 2 in the case where injection is
100 MMscf/D while 50 MMscf/D is all that is actually
required to balance voidage. In this case, Gxs equals 50
MMscf/D. Therefore, by determination of the amount of
excess gas injection, the VRR can be calculated.
Under-Injection Case In this case, the pressure at the
current time step is below the previous time step in a region.
In other words, less gas has been injected than was required to
balance voidage. The volume of injection gas required to
increase the pressure in the region in the current time step to
that of the previous time step needs to be calculated. Using
Equation 5, it can be observed that in the under-injection case,
Gxs has a negative value. When a negative value of Gxs is used
in Equation 8, the resulting VRR is less than 1.
For the example of VRR equaling 0.5, if 100 MMscf/D of
gas injection is needed to balance voidage (Greq) and the
amount actually injected (Ginj) is 50 MMscf/D then Gxs is -50
MMscf/D. As with the over-injection case, the difference
between the actual injection and the injection required to
balance voidage is determined. This enables the calculation
of VRR.
Methodology as Applied in Boquerón Field
Regional Setting The Boquerón Field is contained within
the boundaries of the Boquerón Block in the Venezuelan state
of Monagas. This block was awarded in the third round of
licensing for field development in 1997 by the Venezuelan
government. The block lies in eastern Venezuela (Fig. 1 and
2). This region of Venezuela is typified by large shallow
fields (-2,000 to -4,000 feet) that were discovered in the
3
1920’s. These fields produced heavier crudes and were
substantially depleted by the early 1990’s. These shallow
fields are underlain by several major thrust sheets (Fig. 3),
which were considered to be non-commercial reservoirs until
the El Furrial Field was discovered in 1984. This set off an
exploration campaign drilling the various structures that are on
trend with the El Furrial Field. These thrust sheets strike NE-
SW and extend for 50+ kilometers. Reservoirs are typically
anticlinal in nature and can trap very large amounts of
hydrocarbons. The primary pay horizons are sandstones
ranging from Miocene to Cretaceous age.
Boquerón Structural Relief The Boquerón Field is an
anticlinal structure trending NE-SW on the same thrust sheet
as the El Furrial and Viboral fields. The total vertical relief
from crest to spill point is 3,400 feet. Structural dips along the
flank of the field are very high, exceeding 45° in places. The
field is cut by several major cross faults that appear to
compartmentalize the reservoir (Fig. 4 and 5). However,
bottom hole pressure data indicates that many of the faults are
not sealing and fair to excellent connectivity exists between
many of the wells in different fault blocks (Fig. 6).
Reservoir Characteristics The main pay intervals, a
reservoir designated by the original operator as Naricual
Superior and Inferior, is a subarkoses to quartzarenite
sandstone of Upper Cretaceous age. It was deposited in a
passive marine margin with the sediment source being the
Guyana Shield to the south. Deposition pro-graded north-
northeast into the Monagas basin. The reservoir setting of the
Boquerón Field was of a littoral (coastal-shallow marine)
nature. Porosities at the depth of the Naricual in Boquerón
Field (-15,800 to –18,200 feet) range from 13 to 8 percent,
decreasing with depth. Permeabilities measured via whole
cores vary from nil to about 20 md with a general figure being
10 md near the top of the anticline, declining to 2-4 md on the
lower extremities. Rock compressibility is about 2.7e-6/psi.
The reservoir section has a total gross thickness of 450 feet
while the net pay amounts to 300 feet (Fig. 7). Production
logging indicates that flow is fairly uniform from all of the
perforated intervals with the best pay, Main 1 Fluvial,
dominating. Water saturations are low, generally in the 10 to
20 percent range. Although very little water production is
observed from any of the fields in the El Furrial Trend, the
flank wells in Boquerón Field do produce a small amount of
water. The aquifer is of a limited nature and provides very
limited pressure support, not surprising considering the thrust
sheet nature of the play.
PVT Characteristics Hydrocarbons were generated in the
Upper Cretaceous Querequal shales. They migrated upwards
through successive thrust sheets, filling the various anticlines
in the trend to their respective spill points. Eventually, this
action sourced the shallow oil fields in the area (some of
which contain over 5 billion STB of oil in place). The PVT
characteristics of the crudes in the El Furrial trend are fairly
unique in that operators commonly encounter 36 °API black
crudes that are actually retrograde condensates with fairly high
dew point pressures. In several cases, this condensate overlies
volatile oil and/or black oil. In the Boquerón field, this
hydrocarbon system transitions continuously from gas to black
oil to a tar over a 2,300 ft. interval, with saturation pressures
that grade from over 7,700 psia to below 3,300 psia (Fig. 8) all
4 SPE 83459
at a single phase at original conditions. The GOR of the fluid
ranges from 5,000 scf/STB to 700 scf/STB. Formation
volume factors range from 9 RB/STB in the gas condensate
interval to 1.2 RB/STB in the black oil interval.
An eleven component EOS was constructed to match PVT
characteristics of the field and tuned to the black oil data.
These data consisted of constant mass expansion experiments,
constant volume depletion experiments (dew point samples),
differential liberation experiments (bubble point fluids), and
separator tests, all derived from eight recombined surface
samples. A depth-dependent composition table was developed
to match the initial GOR’s of the individual wells.
considerable amount of effort was given to matching dew
point and bubble point pressures of the various PVT samples
(Fig. 9). A plot of C31+ versus depth is enclosed (Fig. 10)
illustrating the depth-dependent nature of these components.
Compositional Modeling and Determination of VRR A
compositional full field model (CFFM) was constructed to
optimize production operations and development of the field.
The field is broken up into a number of volume regions in
the CFFM to model the various possible pressure
compartments (e. g. fault blocks) (Fig. 11). The same EOS is
used for all the compartments, but two different composition
vs. depth tables are used to capture areal compositional
variations. Each volume region in the CFFM is assigned a
pressure target, Ptarg, for predictive calculations. The field gas
injection rate forecast is specified and the model divides
injection amongst the various regions to best maintain
pressure targets in the various compartments. Reasonable
injection rate maximums are specified for each region with
appropriate facility and wellbore constraints.
After the CFFM simulation runs to completion, the
regional hydrocarbon compositions, volumes, pressures, and
gas injection volumes/compositions are extracted from the text
output for each time step. These data are fed into an external
EOS package where a series of single cell experiments are run,
one for each region and time step (Fig. 12). This computer
program models a laboratory mercury injection cell.
In the single cell EOS experiments, the model cell is
charged with the regional average composition at a given time
step. Initial cell pressure is set equal to the lower of Pt or Pt-∆t.
Pt is the region average pressure of the current time step while
Pt-∆t is the region average pressure of the previous time step.
Injection gas, with composition equal to that at the same time
step, is injected into the cell to increase the pressure from the
lower to the higher pressure.
In Boquerón, the hydrocarbon reservoir volume is
essentially constant because there is negligible water
production, a weak aquifer, no water injection, and low rock
compressibility. Voidage is replaced using miscible
gas injection.
Over-Injection In cases where Pt > Pt-∆t (over-injection),
more gas than necessary was injected to maintain one-to-one
voidage replacement. Here, the cell is initialized with
composition Z(i)t-∆t and pressure Pt-∆t. Mercury is injected into
the model cell to increase the pressure from Pt-∆t to Pt (Fig.
13). An interpolation between two stages of the EOS
experiment is used to calculate the relative injection gas-oil
ratio, Reos. This is the injection volume ratio required to
return the cell volume in the experimental cell to Vt-∆t.
Reos = R2 – [(V2 – Vt-∆t)/(V2-V1)] * (R2 – R1)……...……(9)
This injection gas-oil ratio, in units of scf/RB, is then
multiplied by the HCPV of the entire region and divided by
the time step interval to calculate the amount of gas that was
over injected, Gxs (Fig. 14). In effect, this is a scaling factor
that relates the excess gas required to balance the cell volume
A at the experimental level to the entire region or field HCPV.
Gxs = + (HCPV * Reos)/∆t…………………………...…(10)
Under-Injection In cases where Pt < Pt-∆t (under-injection),
less gas than necessary was injected to maintain voidage.
Here, the cell is charged with composition Z(i)t, the initial
pressure is Pt and the final cell pressure is Pt-∆t (Fig. 15).
Again, the relative injection gas-oil ratio Reos, is calculated to
determine the volume required to increase the volume in the
EOS cell to Vt. In this case, mercury is injected to increase
pressure to that of the previous time step, Pt-∆t.
Reos = R2 – [(V2 – Vt)/(V2-V1)] * (R2 – R1)……………(11)
To calculate Gxs, Equation 10 is used but the sign is
reversed, indicating that a negative excess gas rate (short fall)
is required to balance voidage (Fig. 16).
Gxs = - (HCPV * Reos)/∆t…………………………....…(12)
An added benefit of this system is that even in a reservoir
that has moderate water production, the HCPV changes very
little if relatively short data reporting intervals (e. g., months)
are employed.
Step-by-Step Procedure The following sequence of steps
are employed to capture the relevant data from the CFFM and
process it in an external EOS package:
1. Setup the CFFM to report the volume regions that
represent major pressure compartments, i.e. fault
blocks, zones of interest, etc.
2. Run the simulator through completion with target
pressures, Ptarg, and appropriate injection rate
constraints. The CFFM needs to output, by
region, the overall composition, average pressure
corrected to datum, and HCPV in reservoir units.
3. Extract these data from the simulator output files
using a suitable processing utility (e.g. PERL,
FORTRAN, etc.)
4. Create an input file, at each time reported, for use
with an external EOS program capable of
performing single cell PVT experiments. This
EOS program models a laboratory PVT testing
apparatus. For example, mercury is injected in the
model to mimic actual lab experiments.
SPE 83459
5. Place the EOS characterization used in the CFFM
into the external EOS input file. Build the EOS
input file to have one experiment for each region
in the model. This creates an EOS data set that is
used to model a single cell PVT experiment for
each separate report time.
6. Place the injection gas composition, used in the
CFFM at the report time, into the EOS input file.
7. Determine whether the regional VRR = 1
(balanced, Pt = Pt-∆t), VRR < 1 (under injected, Pt
< Pt-∆t) or if VRR > 1 (over injected, Pt > Pt-∆t)
using the data extraction program.
8. If VRR = 1, no calculation is necessary, don’t
create an EOS experiment for that step and move
to the next region.
9. If the current regional pressure is greater than the
pressure of the previous reporting time (Pt > Pt-∆t
and therefore VRR > 1), more gas has been
injected than is needed to maintain one-to-one
voidage (Fig. 13). An EOS experiment is
initialized with the previous reporting time
regional pressure, volume Vt-∆t, and overall
composition. The PVT cell is increased in
pressure (injection of mercury) until it matches the
regional pressure from the current time, Pcell = Pt.
This increase in pressure in the cell reduces the
volume V in the cell. As the HCPV does not
change significantly in the ground over short time
steps, the amount of gas that results in building V
up to the correct level can be determined by
injecting gas in a series of constant volumes steps
R1, R2, etc. (scf/RB) until V just exceeds Vt-∆t. At
this point, interpolation is used to pin down the
actual volume of injection gas per reservoir barrel,
Reos, which is necessary to return the cell volume
to Vt-∆t.
10. If the current pressure is less than the pressure of
the previous reporting time (Pt < Pt-∆t and therefore
VRR<1), meaning that less gas was injected than
needed to maintain 1:1 reservoir voidage (Fig.
15). In this case, an EOS experiment is setup
using the current (rather than the previous)
regional pressure, overall composition and volume
Vt. The pressure in the experimental cell is
increased with mercury until the cell pressure
equals the previous reporting time pressure, Pcell =
Pt-∆t. Gas is injected into the cell in a series of
constant volume steps (as in the previous
example) until V just exceeds the current time
step volume, Vt. The injection gas-oil ratio, Reos,
which would be required to return the cell volume
to Vt, is then interpolated. This represents the gas
shortfall in the system. Note that this is exactly
the same use of the EOS program as with the
over-injection case, except the current time is used
as the starting point of the experiment and the
previous time step is used as the end point.
5
11. All the regional experiments are run in the EOS
program. This creates one output file for each
report time.
12. Relative cell volumes (V1, V2, …) and relative
injection gas-oil ratios (R1, R2, …) are extracted
from these output files.
13. The relative injection gas-oil ratio, Reos, required
to achieve the amount of over or under injection is
interpolated for each report time and each region.
This ratio, in scf/RB, is converted to Gxs by
multiplying by the regional HCPV and dividing
by the time interval in days. This results in a
positive Gxs value for over-injection and a
negative for under-injection.
14. VRR is computed using Equation 8.
Development History The Boquerón Field was discovered
by the BOQ-2 well in 1989. The well encountered the Main 2
sandstone reservoir, part of the Naricual Inferior formation, at
–16,532 feet TVDSS. The original completion, 17,040-17,085
ft. MD, produced at a rate of over 5,000 STB/D of 29.6° API
oil with a GOR of 1,022 scf/STB. The original bottom hole
pressure was 12,903 psia and the bottom hole temperature was
measured at 300 °F. The field was put on production in
December 1989.
Cumulative production as of January 2003 amounts to 40
MMSTB of oil and 98 Bscf of gas. A total of 22 wells with
several sidetracks have been drilled to delineate and develop
the field.
In 1998, the contractor and the government decided to
implement a miscible gas injection project in the field to
maximize the ultimate recovery and production rates from the
field. High-pressure gas compressors of a fairly unique
configuration (10,000 psi reciprocal compressors) were
purchased and produced gas reinjection was initiated in June
2001 at a rate of ~50 MMscf/D. The plant’s capacity was
gradually increased until the 150 MMscf/D design capacity
was achieved in February 2002. The injection gas consists of
field separator gas and offsite gas imported from another
reservoir in the area. At present, makeup gas is augmenting
the produced gas with combined injection being ~90
MMscf/D. Gas is being injected into the entire reservoir
sequence (Fig. 7) in three crestal injectors (one currently shut-
in) and one flank injector (Fig. 4). The field is currently
producing from 13 crestal and flank producers (three of which
are shutin due to asphaltene/sand production problems) (Fig.
5). Production is currently curtailed at ~10,000 STB/D with
the goal of replenishing reservoir energy and recharging the
field to a target pressure of 8,000 psi. This target pressure was
determined via comparing the ultimate oil recovery using
different target pressures in a series of predictive model runs.
Surface equipment limitations impacted this decision as well
as the availability of sufficient makeup gas.
Actual Field Practice The CFFM is updated on a monthly
basis with the latest production data. The results are extracted
using the script mentioned above and run through the external
EOS package on a time step-by-time step basis. The resulting
VRR for each region is reported to the appropriate
governmental regulatory bodies and discussed with the
operational team. The subsurface and operational teams use
6 SPE 83459

the monthly results to plan short-term gas injection and well Nomenclature
work strategies, and to evaluate longer-term
development plans. Bg = formation volume factor for gas, RB/scf
Production rate and pressure decline trends over time are Bo = formation volume factor for oil, RB/STB
illustrated in Fig. 17. Thus the apparent voidage from some Bw = formation volume factor for water, RB/STB
blocks can be balanced by matching injection in adjacent CFFM = compositional full field model
blocks. Note that the reservoir pressure has begun to rebound EOR = enhanced oil recovery
in the field. A plot of one of the regions (East Central) EOS = equation of state
illustrates the results of injecting above a VRR of 1 (Fig. 18). HCPV = hydrocarbon pore volume, reservoir volume
Long term forecasting of regional depletion and makeup gas units, MRB
requirements is conducted using the regional VRR information Ginj = gas injected during any time period for EOR
(Fig. 19). Table 1 illustrates production, injection and VRR in operations, Mscf/D
the West Central Block. The methodology presented in this Greq = gas injection rate necessary to balance
paper results in VRR values of 1.3 to 3, while using a reservoir voidage, Mscf/D
simplistic approach (Equation 3) yields VRR of 2.3 to 10, Gxs = gas rate that is in excess of the amount
results that are over estimated by a factor of 3. The CFFM required to balance reservoir voidage, Mscf/D
accounts for the flux of fluids and pressure across the GOR = gas oil ratio, scf/STB
permeable faults. A case in point, production was low enough Pcell = pressure in an EOS single cell model, psia
in Jan. 2003 due to a national strike that regional flux Pt = reservoir pressure at time t, a time step in the
(accounted for in the CFFM) significantly impacts the VRR CFFM, psia
calculations. Equation 3 does not account for flux Pt-∆t = reservoir pressure at the previous time step
across faults. from time t in the CFFM, psia
Ptarg = target reservoir pressure for EOR operation
Conclusions Qg = gas production rate, Mscf/D
In a system strongly influenced by compositional effects, Qginj = gas injection rate, Mscf/D
calculating voidage replacement ratios cannot be analyzed by Qo = oil production rate, STB/D
simple material balance formulations. Issues such as Qw = water production rate, STB/D
miscibility and variable formation volume factors Qwinj = water injection rate, STB/D
(compositions and associated saturation pressures varying R1, R2... = relative injection gas-oil ratio resulting from
with depth) need to be evaluated with a compositional model. EOS single cell experiments, scf/RB
VRR can be calculated utilizing an external EOS program in Reos = relative GOR required to adjust volume in
combination with a CFFM. EOS experiment for change in pressure,
Optimizing Field Performance VRR is a dimensionless scf/RB
measure of voidage balance. This makes it a very useful Rs = solution GOR, scf/STB
surveillance tool for evaluating the relative voidage between t = time in the CFFM, days
different blocks within the field. Calculating VRR on a ∆t = time step length, days
continuous basis (monthly, for example) provides the operator t−∆t = the previous time step from time t in the
with a mechanism to control regional voidage. Thus, if one CFFM, days
region is more depleted than another, additional gas can be TVDSS = true vertical depth sub-sea, feet
injected into that region. However, without knowing if V = volume, fraction
regions are falling below a VRR of 1, the operator cannot tell V1, V2… = volume in individual EOS experiments,
if the adjustment in injection allocation is reasonable or fraction
potentially detrimental to recovery. This is particularly Vt = volume in EOS experiment at CFFM time t
helpful when the operator is constrained on gas injection. Vinj = volume of fluid injected, fraction
Well work planning and possible conversion of producers to Vprod = volume of fluids produced from a reservoir,
injectors can be influenced by monitoring VRR. fraction
Via this dimensionless measure of voidage balance, the Vreq = volume of fluid injected required to exactly
operator is able to convey to the appropriate regulatory agency balance the total volume produced, fraction
that prudent operations are ongoing. Further, in the situation Z(i)t = overall regional composition of the
where limited makeup gas volumes are available, the operator hydrocarbon mixture, i equals 1 to the total
can demonstrate to the government the necessity of number of EOS components at the current
reallocating injection gas to optimize production and recovery. time t in the CFFM, mole fraction
In the case of the Boquerón field, VRR calculations are vital Z(i)t-∆t = overall regional composition of the
in evaluating the volume of makeup gas needed to recharge hydrocarbon mixture, i equals 1 to the total
the reservoir to the target pressure, significantly reducing number of EOS components at the previous
asphaltene-related operational problems and improving rates time step in the CFFM, mole fraction
and recovery.
SPE 83459 7

Acknowledgements
A multi-disciplinary team was formed to support the
Boquerón field, with representation from BP Venezuela’s
Operations staff in Maturín and Subsurface team in Houston,
and BP Exploration and Production Technology Group in
Houston. We would like to acknowledge the management of
BP Venezuela Holdings Ltd., Preussag Energie GmbH, and
PdVSA for providing permission to publish this paper.

References
1. Amyx, Bass and Whiting: Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, Toronto, London
(1960).
2. Craft and Hawkins: Applied Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1959).
3. Bushnell, D. C. and V. Rigatti: “Origin, Preservation, and
Destruction of Quiriquire Deep Gas/Condensate-
Oil/Bitumen Field, Eastern Venezuela,” presented at the
Hedberg Research Conference “Origin and Occurrence of Fig. 2 – Map of El Furrial Trend illustrating thrust sheets and
Natural Gas”, Durango, Colorado (1999). fields. Reservoir and PVT characteristics are similar for fields on
4. Clark, R. A. Jr., Leza, F., Hetzel, A., Minicucci, D., Rigatti, the same thrust sheet.
V.: “Porosity Correction Method Developed for a High
Vertical Relief Field in Eastern Venezuela,” paper SPE
69397 presented at the 2001 SPE Latin American and NNW SSE
Strike projection
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Boquerón Field
Aires, Argentina, 25–28 March
5. Lee, S., Gomez, P. A., Toczylkin, L.: “An Integrated
Approach to Interpret and Quantify Cusiana Hydrocarbon
System,” paper SPE 27029 presented at the 1994 SPE III
Latin America/Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Buenos Aries, Argentina, 27-29 April.
6. McCain: The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, Second
Edition, PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK (1990)

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl x 1.589874 E-01 = m3
ft x 3.048* E-01 = m Fig. 3 - Cross sectional view of the El Furrial Trend area
psi x 6.894757 E+00 = Kpa illustrating the structural complexity and numerous
anticlinal traps.

63 W 62 W

Northeastern Venezuela Infrastructure

PORT OF SPAIN
High pressure miscible gas injection
CARUPANO

SUCRE
Guarapiche
Guarapiche
BP 37.5% (Op)
Amoco 37.5%
Maxus 25%

Boca de la Serpiente
BP 10 N
BP/AMOCO/MAXUS

El Furrial Quiriquire
MATURIN Maxus 55% (Op)
BP 45%

Boquerón
MONAGAS
DELTA AMACURO
TUCUPITA
VENEZUELA

BELT
O TAR SOUTH
ORINOC AMERICA
Fig. 4 – Boquerón field as modeled in the CFFM.

Fig. 1 - Boquerón Block outline in Eastern Venezuela.

8 SPE 83459

Depth
TVDss
16000

Condensate
BOQ-10

16500
BOQ-11

Volatile Oil
BOQ-2
17000

BOQ-4 Black Oil

No production achieved below 17300 ft ss

17500
3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000

Saturation/Dewpoint Pressure (Psia)

Fig. 5 – View of Boquerón Field illustrating the structural relief
and development wells. Fig. 8 – Saturation pressure vs. depth for Boquerón Field.

Boquerón Field Measured Pressures (All Wells)

Static and SIBHP Saturation Pressure - psia
14,000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
13,000 16000
Reservoir Pressure - psia (-17,000 ft TVDss)

12,000
BOQ 7 16200 PSAT_1
11,000 BOQ 5
BOQ 4 PSAT_WCNTRL
10,000 BOQ 3
BOQ 2
BOQ 10 PSAT_F510
9,000 BOQ 11 16400
BOQ 11 VIP Measured Saturation
BOQ 4ST Boq-5
Pressures
8,000 BOQ 12ST
BOQ 13
Depth - ft TVDss

7,000 BOQ 14
BOQ 15 16600 Boq-13
BOQ 16
6,000 BOQ 17
BOQ 18
BOQ 19 Boq-16
5,000 BOQ 21
BOQ 20ST 16800
Boq-2
BOQ 22
4,000 Boq-4
Jan-89 Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Boq-12
Boq-18
17000 Boq-7

Fig. 6 – Well-by-well bottom hole pressure at –17,000 ft. datum vs.

time for Boquerón Field. 17200

17400

Layer Lithology EOD Thickness

Naricual Lime Limestone Marine Shelf 100 ft. Fig. 9 – EOS match of lab and field data, saturation pressure vs.
depth for Boquerón Field.
B3NP Shale Marine 10 ft.
B2 Pay Sandstone Estuarine 48 ft.
B1UNP Shale Marine 40 ft.
B1 Pay Sandstone Estuarine 100 ft. Boqueron Field C31+ vs. Depth
B1LNP Shale Marine 30 ft.
C31+ Componenet Mole Fraction Originally in Place
Main2 Pay Sandstone Fluvial 260 ft. 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
16000

16200

Main2NP Non-Pay Shale Marine 10 ft. 16400

Main1 Pay FLUV Sandstone Fluvial 100 ft.
Depth - Ft. TVDSS

16600
Main1 Pay DELT Sandstone Deltaic 45 ft.
ANP Shale Marine 20 ft.
A Pay Sandstone Fluvial 45 ft. 16800

17000

Fig. 7 - Type log for Boquerón Field and flow layers used in CFFM,
17200
vertical resolution 54 layers.
17400

Fig. 10 – Variation of C31+ vs. depth based on EOS and used in

the CFFM for Boquerón Field.
SPE 83459 9

Boquerón Field Regional Blocks

Gxs: OVER-INJECTION

Excess gas rate with over-injection is the gas rate

NE volume required to move Vt-∆t from Pt-∆t to Pt
NW
Mrb scf / rb
ECNTRL HCPV R eos
G xsMscf /D
( OVER _ INJECTION ) = +
∆ t days

5-10 Fig. 14 – Determination of Gxs in an over-injection case.

WCNTRL

Single Cell Experiment in EOS Package with Gas Injection

and no fluid withdrawal (Pt < Pt-Dt, UNDER INJECTION)
Interpolate to get injection volume ratio required to adjust cell
volume at current time to previous time
 V − V t  scf
scf
R eos / rb
= R 2scf / rb
−  2 (
 R 2 / rb
− R1scf / rb
)
Fig. 11 – Volume regions in the Boquerón Compositional Full  V 2 − V1  gas
Field Model.
V = Vt gas
Single Timestep in Reservoir Simulator Region - Greq, Ginj, Gxs
(Winj = Qw = 0, HCPV = Constant) Hg FINAL
INJECT
INITIAL INJECT
R2scf/rb
HIGHER P
R1scf/rb
CFFM GinjMscf/D CFFM Pt-∆t Pt-∆t
Pt Pt-∆t
TIME t-∆t TIME t Pt-∆t
Vt V2 Vt
Pt-∆t Pt V0 V1
Z(i)t Z(i)2 Z(i)
Z(i)t-∆t Z(i)t Z(i)t Z(i)1
Qo Qg

Fig. 15 – EOS PVT experiment in an under-injection case.

GxsMscf/D = amount of excess gas injection

EXTERNAL EOS
Gxs: UNDER_INJECTION
Alternate path: an External EOS package is used to determine the
amount of over-injection (positive excess, Pt > Pt-∆t) or under-injection
(negative excess, Pt < Pt-∆t) Excess gas rate with under-injection is the gas rate
volume required to move Vt-∆t from Pt-∆t to Pt
Fig. 12 – Determination of the amount of excess gas injection, Gxs,
over a given time step.
Mrb scf / rb
HCPV R eos
G xsMscf /D
(UNDER _ INJECTION ) = −
Single Cell Experiment in EOS Package with Gas Injection ∆ t days
and no fluid withdrawal (Pt > Pt-∆t, OVER INJECTION)
Fig. 16 – Determination of Gxs in an under-injection case.
Interpolate to get injection volume ratio required to adjust cell
volume at previous time to current time
 V − Vt − ∆t  scf
scf
R eos / rb
= R 2scf / rb
−  2 (
 R 2 / rb
− R1scf / rb
)
 V 2 − V1  gas

V = Vt-∆t gas

Hg FINAL
INJECT
INITIAL INJECT
R2scf/rb
HIGHER P
R1scf/rb
Pt-∆t Pt Pt
Pt Pt
Vt-∆t V2 Vt-∆t
V0 V1
Z(i)t-∆t Z(i)2 Z(i)
Z(i)t-∆t Z(i)1

Fig. 13 – EOS PVT experiment in an over-injection case.

10 SPE 83459

WCNTRL
Boquerón Field - BHP and Rate vs. Time
Oil Rate Gas Rate Inj. Gas VRR Est. VRR
25,000
Approx. point various
14,000 STB/D Mscf/D Mscf/D Clark-Ludolph Eqn. 3
blocks drop below Psat
May-02 2,087 6,389 0 - -

Field Average BHP at -17,000 ft.

20,000 12,000 Jun-02 1,928 5,991 0 - -
Jun-02 1,173 2,433 765 0.2 0.1
Oil Rate - Stbopd

15,000 10,000 Jul-02 1,153 2,425 50,000 3.2 9.2

Aug-02 1,131 2,388 50,000 3.3 9.4
Sep-02 1,284 4,508 49,470 2.7 6.3
10,000 8,000
Oct-02 1,214 5,796 41,900 2.0 4.7
Nov-02 1,142 3,534 39,700 1.9 6.1
5,000 6,000
Dec-02 1,172 3,799 47,014 2.0 6.9
Jan-03 267 856 15,353 1.2 9.9
0 4,000 Feb-03 1,412 4,779 20,730 1.2 2.5
Jan-89

Jan-90

Jan-91

Jan-92

Jan-93

Jan-94

Jan-95

Jan-96

Jan-97

Jan-98

Jan-99

Jan-00

Jan-01

Jan-02

Jan-03

Jan-04
Mar-03 1,497 5,233 22,018 1.2 2.4
Apr-03 1,561 5,165 21,637 1.3 2.3
OIL PRD RATE (STB/DAY) HCPVD PRES (PSIA) May-03 1,560 4,576 23,080 1.4 2.7

Table 1 – VRR, Production, and Gas Injection for the West Central
Fig. 17 – Production and BHP history for Boquerón Field.
Block in Boquerón field compared to VRR calculated
simplistically using Eqn. 3.

VRR and Regional BHP - ECNTRL Region Boquerón Field

9000 2.5

8800

8600 P_ECNTRL 2
Vrr_ECNTRL
BHP - psia at -17,000 ft. datum

8400

8200 1.5
VRR

8000

7800 1

7600

7400 0.5

7200

7000 0
Apr-00

Apr-01

Apr-02

Apr-03
Jan-00

Jul-00

Jan-01

Jul-01

Jan-02

Jul-02

Jan-03
Oct-00

Oct-01

Oct-02

Fig. 18 – VRR and BHP for the East Central Region in Boquerón
Field illustrating the rebound in BHP with VRR above 1.

Boquerón Field All Regions - Voidage Replacement Ratio

Vrr_FIELD
2.5
Vrr_ECNTRL
Voidage Replacement Ratio

Vrr_F510
2 Vrr_NE
Vrr_WCNTRL
1.5

0.5

0
2002 2003 2004 2005

Fig. 19 – Example VRR output from CFFM forecast illustrating the

model’s efforts to recharge the various regions based on Ptarg.