Analisis Injection Capacity Pada Water Disposal Injection Dengan Menggunakan Prosper Simulation Pada Lapngan "ESY"

Yulianto, Eggi Septi (2020) Analisis Injection Capacity Pada Water Disposal Injection Dengan Menggunakan Prosper Simulation Pada Lapngan "ESY". Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Preview

Text 153210027.pdf - Submitted Version Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

In the process of petroleum production, there is also water produced, so that the water will get more and more along with the high water cut during the oil production process. One of the ways PT.CPI is to cope with the water produced by creating a new disposal well. The problem that occurs in the disposal well that causes a decrease in water injection is because it is not known how much capacity the well can accommodate the injected water every day, which results in an average decrease in injection in the SM-89C well which reached 9876 BWPD which previously reached 16069 BWPD. On the NY-85B Well, the average injection reduction result reached 6893 BWPD which previously reached 7226 BWPD. And in the JL-34Z well the average decrease in injection results is 1172 BWPD which previously reached 4216 BWPD. One of the causes of the decrease in water injection is because the capacity of the well will increasingly increase so that the water injection will decrease. This research was conducted to determine the injection capacity of the water disposal well by using the PROSPER simulator. The selection of the simulator is done because the simulator is able to determine the capacity of each layer in the disposal well by analyzing the IPR curve results from the simulator. The equation used for the calculation of IPR is the semi steady state equation. This equation was chosen because of a change in pressure over time. The results of the maximum flow rate between the results of the simulator and the actual are compared to determine the right course of action in the injection of water at the disposal well. The results obtained from the actual data analysis and simulation can be concluded that the results in the SM-89C well that get a pressure difference of 3% and a flow rate of 0.6%, the well NY-85B get a pressure difference of 4% and a flow rate of 1% and well JL-34Z gets a pressure difference of 7% and a flow rate of 2%.

Actions (login required)

View Item