cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
-
Contact Email
-
Phone
-
Journal Mail Official
-
Editorial Address
-
Location
Kota pekanbaru,
Riau
INDONESIA
JOURNAL OF EARTH ENERGY ENGINEERING
Published by Universitas Islam Riau
ISSN : -     EISSN : 25409352     DOI : -
Core Subject : Science, Engineering,
Earth & Planetary Sciences Energy Engineering Materials Science & Nanotechnology
Journal of Earth Energy Engineering (eISSN 2540-9352) is a Bi-annual, open access, multi-disciplinary journal in earth science, energy, and engineering research issued by Department of Petroleum Engineering, Universitas Islam Riau. The journal is peer reviewed by experts in the scientific and engineering areas and also index in Directory of Research Journals Indexing (DRJI) and CrossRef Member.
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 5 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Vol. 5 No. 2 (2016): OCTOBER" : 5 Documents clear
Analisis Sensitivitas Salinitas dan Adsorbsi Injeksi Surfaktan-Polimer Menggunakan Simulasi Reservoir Pada Reservoir Berlapis Lapangan NA Novia Rita
Journal of Earth Energy Engineering Vol. 5 No. 2 (2016): OCTOBER
Publisher : Universitas Islam Riau (UIR) Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22549/jeee.v5i2.476

Abstract

Increasing the time, the condition of the oil in reservoir increasingly difficult for production to the surface, this is caused by diminishing reservoir pressure and the condition of a viscous oil. While the technology used can no longer urged oil to surface. NA field is a field that is old, the production process is done on the field NA has been through the stages of primary and secondary recovery, where this stage is not optimal in increasing oil production on the field. While OOIP on the field is still economically viable. Of screening criteria that has been done on NA Field, the oil production stage to do next is to EOR method. The EOR methods that can be applied is by chemical injection method of surfactant and polymer. Before the surfactant and polymer injection method performed on NA Field, the first done through the stages of planning reinjection reservoir simulation. Fields of reservoir simulation models NA will be analyzed four scenarios conducted for sensitivity to salinity and adsorption of surfactant-polymer. Scenario 1 simulation with values ​​varying salinity, Scenario 2 adsorption value simulation with different surfactants, Scenario 3 sensitivity to polymer adsorption, Scenario 4 see changes impairment influences the permeability to polymer injection. The results of all four scenarios simulations obtained optimum value of cumulative production of 72 548 STB with a recovery factor (RF) of 30.9% at the price of 0.075 surfactant salinity mEq / ml, adsorption of surfactant 0.3 mEq / ml, 0.1 wt polymer adsorption % cuft, and changes in permeability due to 80wt% polymer solution cuft.
Analisis Performance Sumur X Menggunakan Metode Standing Dari Data Pressure Build Up Testing Novrianti Novrianti
Journal of Earth Energy Engineering Vol. 5 No. 2 (2016): OCTOBER
Publisher : Universitas Islam Riau (UIR) Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22549/jeee.v5i2.477

Abstract

The number of production wells refers to the performance of the well, which is shown in the graph of inflow performance relationship (IPR). Reservoir characteristics influence on performance of the well, type of welltest and methods that be used in the determination of IPR. By using the IPR curves, maximum flow rate and the optimal flow rate of the well will be known. Pressure Build Up test is used to know performance and a maximum flow rate of the X well. Well test conducted for 15 hours. The well produced at a constant flow rate than close the wellhead. The Pressure data and time data obtained from the well test. The result of Pressure build-up testing analysis among permeability, skin and flow efficiency. After analyzing the Pressure build-up testing permeability obtained 190 mD, skin + 1,68 and 0,83 flow efficiency. Based on the value of flow efficiency Standing method is the most appropriate method is used to analyze the productivity of X well. Standing appropriate method for wells with skin ≠ 0 and flow efficiency ≠ 1. The maximum flow rate of the X well using Standing Method on the 0,83 flow efficiency was 13,91 MMSCFD
Prediksi Kinerja Steamflood Dengan Metode Myhill-Stegemeier dan Gomaa di Area R Duri Steamflood (DSF) Rycha Melysa
Journal of Earth Energy Engineering Vol. 5 No. 2 (2016): OCTOBER
Publisher : Universitas Islam Riau (UIR) Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22549/jeee.v5i2.478

Abstract

Steamflood constitutes one of method Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) by injected steam with quality and particular flow rate kontinyu into reservoir. Its aim is increase oil mobility at reservoir by downs viscosity to produced passes through producer. Before does simulation exhaustively, there is it is better does to predict performance a steamflood's reservoir by analytic simple one. This studies compares two simple methods in prediction steamflood's reservoir performance by use of data historical on area R Duri Steamflood (DSF). Gomaa's method utilizes many graph have already at previous generalizing but just applies on field with given characteristic limitation. Then Myhill Stegemeier modifies equation that made by Mandl and Volek to interpose that displacement form in reservoir is frontal displacement one dimension yawns to oil. Both of that method have excess and its lack each. Compares two simple methods in predicting reservoir performance steamflood using historical data on the area "R" Steamflood Duri. Gomaa method using some charts that have been generalized before but only apply to the courts to limit certain characteristics. Myhill-Stegemeier then modify the equations created by Mandl and Volek to argue that the form of displacement in the reservoir is a one-dimensional frontal displacement steam to oil. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages of each. Both methods produce a number of different oil recovery. The cumulative oil recovery methods amounted to 1378917 Stegemeiers Myhill-STB (76% of OOIP) and Method Gomaa of the STB 999 072 (55% of OOIP). Comparison of steam-oil (FSO) obtained in Method Myhill is a comparison of cumulative, it is evident from the constant value (FSO) obtained from the first year until the 10th year. Gomaa is different from the method they are relatively oil-vapor ratio (FSO) obtained.
Perbandingan Analisis Decline Curve antara Metode Trial Error dan Decline Type Curve Matching Untuk Menentukan Cadangan Minyak Sisa Guntur Setiawan
Journal of Earth Energy Engineering Vol. 5 No. 2 (2016): OCTOBER
Publisher : Universitas Islam Riau (UIR) Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22549/jeee.v5i2.479

Abstract

Decline curve analysis often used to determine remaning reserves in a reservoir. To analyze with this method, the decline type curve from production period (trend) must be known. To determine decline type curve, in this paper will use two methods there are: trial error & x2 chisquare test and decline type curve matching. Both of methods have different way to determine decline type curve. Trial error done by making tabulation and calculation, while decline type curve matching done by overlay. The calculation are aimed to determine decline type curve, Remaining Reserves (RR) and Estimate Ultimate Recovery (EUR). Analysis done by taking sample of data well X which is a new well produced since September 2013 till the last data is Febuary 2016. First step of this study done by making type curve from equations and assumptionin literature then plot production rate vs time and choose production period (trend) to be analyzed. After that, determine decline type curve by trial error and decline type curve matching and do forecast until get remaining reserves and estimated ultimate recovery if economic limit rate production known. From calculation of both methods, resulted exponential decline type curve. For the error method obtained RR 41322,3 STB and EUR 240328,9 STB, while for decline type curve matching obtained RR 40534,2 STB and EUR 239540,8 STB
Analisis Kinerja Tenaga Pendorong Reservoir dan Perhitungan Water Influx pada Perolehan Minyak Tahap Primer (Studi Kasus Lapangan Falipu) Ira Herawati
Journal of Earth Energy Engineering Vol. 5 No. 2 (2016): OCTOBER
Publisher : Universitas Islam Riau (UIR) Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22549/jeee.v5i2.480

Abstract

Primary recovery is the stage of oil production by relying on the natural ability of the driving force of the reservoir. Kind of driving force that is water drive reservoir, depletion drive, segregation drive and a combination drive. The pressure drop occurred along its produced oil from the reservoir. Reservoir so that the driving force is the main parameter in maintaining reservoir pressure balance. Through the concept of material balance is the determination of the type of propulsion quifer reservoir and the power that generates driving force parameter analysis capability and aquifer in oil producing naturally. Then do the forecasting production to limit the ability of primary recovery production phase. Combination drive depletion of water drive and the drive is a driving force in the dominant reservoir Falipu Fields with a strongly water aquifer types of drives obtained through material balance equation. Calculations using the method of water influx Havlena & Odeh used as a correction factor for determining the type of propulsion reservoir and aquifer strength. Forecasting production in the Field Falipu generate recovery factor of 41% with a pressure boundary in 2050.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 5

 1 

Filter by Year

2016 2016


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 13 No. 2 (2024) Vol. 13 No. 1 (2024) Vol. 12 No. 2s (2023): IC-UPERTAIN 2022 Vol. 12 No. 3 (2023) Vol. 12 No. 2 (2023) Vol. 12 No. 1 (2023) Vol. 11 No. 3 (2022) Vol. 11 No. 2 (2022) Vol. 11 No. 1 (2022) Vol. 10 No. 3 (2021) Vol. 10 No. 2 (2021) Vol. 10 No. 1 (2021) Vol. 9 No. 2 (2020): OCTOBER Vol. 9 No. 1 (2020): APRIL Vol. 8 No. 2 (2019): OCTOBER Vol. 8 No. 1 (2019): APRIL Vol 8 No 1 (2019): APRIL Vol. 7 No. 2 (2018): OCTOBER Vol 7 No 2 (2018): OCTOBER Vol. 7 No. 1 (2018): APRIL Vol 7 No 1 (2018): APRIL Vol 6 No 2 (2017): OCTOBER Vol. 6 No. 2 (2017): OCTOBER Vol. 6 No. 1 (2017): APRIL Vol 6 No 1 (2017): APRIL Vol 5 No 2 (2016): OCTOBER Vol. 5 No. 2 (2016): OCTOBER Vol. 5 No. 1 (2016): APRIL Vol 5 No 1 (2016): APRIL Vol 4 No 2 (2015): OCTOBER Vol. 4 No. 2 (2015): OCTOBER Vol 3 No 1 (2014): APRIL Vol. 3 No. 1 (2014): APRIL Vol. 2 No. 2 (2013): OCTOBER Vol 2 No 2 (2013): OCTOBER Vol 1 No 1 (2012): OCTOBER Vol. 1 No. 1 (2012): OCTOBER More Issue