PRACTICAL HEAVY OIL
RECOVERY
S.M. FAROUQ ALI
University of Alberta
‘Edmonton, Alt
Iberta
Fax: (403)486-1201
J.A. JONES
‘Resources Inc., CA
and
R.F. MELDAU
1997
HhoFOREWORD
This is the draft of a book currently being finalized, with publication
expected in 1997. The book is intended to be a guide to the engineering
aspects of thermal oil recovery. We have attempted to cover the present
technology and some aspects of design. We shall appreciate any
comments and suggestions. This being a draft, we respectfully ask you
not to copy it or circulate it.
‘SM, Faroug Ali
aiCONTENTS
Introduction
Current In Situ Projects
1
Heavy Oil and Tar Sands
Introduction 2
it 1
Typical Reservoir Properties 21
Importance of Geology 22
Recovery Processes
‘Thermal Methods 31
Non-thermal Methods 33
Steam and Oil Flow
41
Wacoal Residual Oil Saturation at
Temperature
Oil Displacement by Steam 42
Formation Heating by Hot Fluid Injection
Heat Transfer Mechanism $1
Marx-Langenheim Model 5-2
Steam Injection Heat Eficiency 5-5
Mandl-Volek Modification 5-11
Formation Heating by Hot Water Injection 5-14
Injection at Varying Rates 5-16
Cyclic Steam Stimulation
61
Reservoir Selection 6-4
Performance Prediction 65,
Towson-Boberg Method 6-13
Use of Horizontal Wells for Cycle Steaming 6-14
Operating T and Problems 6-15
Steam Injection Profile Control 6-16
‘Additives in Cyclic Steaming 6-18
CSS-Canada's Super Strategy for Oil Sands
Why Cyclic Steam Predictive Models Get No Respect
add
veCONTENTS (continued)
Steamflooding
Mechanisms Tel
Special Conditions 14
Reservoir Selection 14
Performance Prediction 14
Operational Techniques and Problems 16
jot Design TA
‘Van Lookeren's Method for Steam Conformance 78
Goma Steamflood Prediction 19
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
In Situ Combustion
Mechanics of Dry, Forward Combustion 83
Fuel Content 84
‘Air Requirement and Air-Oil Ratio 8-5
Combustion Zone Velocity 36
Heat of Combustion 86
Water Formed by Combustion 87
Air Injection Rate 87
Extinction Radius 87
Tar Sand Recovery
Introduction 91
Problems in Oil Recovery From Tar Sands 9-1
Methods of ing the Recovery 9-2
Projects in the Tar Sands of Canada 93
Concluding Remarks 95
Mathematical Simulation of Thermal Recovery Processes
Introduction 10-1
‘Thermal Recovery Methods 10-1
Mechanistic Features 10-2
‘Simulation of Steam Injection 103
Evaluation of Steam Injection Simulation 105
Simulation of In Situ Combustion 10-6
Evaluation of In Situ Combustion Simulation 10-7
Summary 10-7
Steam Generation and Distribution
Oilfield Steam Generators 11
Water Treatment 116
Heat Losses 119
iv
tot
12.
13.
CONTENTS (continued)
Well Tes ea
Expansion
filidey 9 Eaton
Casing Prestress
Steam Injection
Steam Injection Well Completions
Tubing
Fiow br Te Casing: Tubing Annulus
Flow At Sand Face
Reactions
‘Heat Loss Into The Earth
Insulated Tubing
‘Downhole Steam Generators
Computer Models
‘Wellbore Heat Loss Equations
Producing Wells
Pilot Design and Operation
Monitoring Steamfloods
Fireflood Operations
Surface and Wellbore Heat Loss
‘Surface Heat Loss Mechanisms
Surface Heat Loss Calculation
‘Steam Quality Drop in Surface Piping
Pressure Drop in Steam Pipelines
‘Wellbore Heat Loss Mechanism
Calculation of Heat Loss
Insulated Tubing
Cement
Steam Quality D in the Wellbore
‘Thermal St
Faerna edon Down fe Casing Tybi Annulus
‘Comprehensive Treatments of Wellbore Heat Loss
12-3
12-15
141
15-1
16-1
17-1CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDICES
Nomenclature
»
Units Employed in Thermal Recovery Calculations
C. Wet Steam Properties
Equations
D. Thermal Properties of Rocks and Fluids
Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Liquids
ASTM Viscosity Chart
Viscosity of Liquid Mixtures
Viscosity of Water and Steam
Other Units of Viscosity
Density
‘Specific Heat
Heat ' Df Satdated ‘Rocks
of
Thormal Difesvy
‘Steamflood Residual Oil Saturation
vi
Al
B-l
lo
fea ee
Lo
ocCHAPTER |
INTRODUCTION
Heavy oil and tar sands are important hydrocarbon resources that are destined to play an
increasingly important role in the oil supply of the world, and North America in
particular. The heavy oil resources of the world total over 10 trillion barrels, nearly three
times the conventional oil in place in the world. The tar sands of Alberta alone contain
over two trillion barrels of oil. The important question is: how much of this oil is
recoverable and what techniques could be applied? In the prolific heavy oil reservoirs of
California oil recovery by steam injection is 50-60% of the initial oil in place, and often
much higher. In Alberta, recovery is considerably lower - 5 to 20% in better areas -
because the main recovery method is cyclic steam stimulation. Undoubtedly this figure
will go up as technology advances. The importance of heavy oil can be appreciated by
the fact that nearly 10% of the oil production in the U.S.A. and 20% in Canada is from
heavy oil and tar sands resources. These figures are increasing steadily every year.
This book is the draft of a text in preparation, and is expected to be published in 1997.Dally Oil Bulletin
44-Jun-96
Ust Of Oil Sands Projects
Cold Lake projects Investment
‘Alberta Energy Company
Cold Lake-Foster Creek $13 million
‘$200 milion
‘Amoco Canada Petroleum Co
Primrose-Wolf Lake ‘$500 milion
ELAN Energy inc.
Lindbergh Ek Pointy
Wolf Lake/Cold Lake ‘$225 milion
installation:
Imperial Oil Limited
Cold Lake Phases 9-10 ‘$250 milion
Cold Lake Phases 11-12 ‘$250 million
(proposed)
Imperial Oi Limited
Leming Lake $40 milion
Koch Exploration Canada,
Reita Lake {$200 milion+
‘Suncor Inc.
Primrose-Bumt Lake {$120 milion
Timing
immediate
1997-88
1996-2000
1996-2000
immediate
immediate
1997-98
1996-99
1998-99
Description
SAGD bitumen pilot
plant: 1,000 bpd
‘Commercial bitumen
project: 30,000 bpd
various horizontal
‘well technologies:
in situ to 65,500
bpd of bitumen
vertical and
horizontal driling;
‘SW-SAGD process
increase in situ
bitumen production
to total 127,000 bpd
1999 increase in situ
bitumen production:
‘approx. 20,000 bpd
following Phases 9 & 10
in situ development
production at Cold =
Lake operations:
9,400 bpd of bitumen
in situ bitumen
project: 40,000 bpd
Phase 1: SAGD pilot
plant: 2,500 bpd
Phase 2 commercial
plant: increase
prodisction to
42,500 bpd
Lo
J\
l
3
ue
f
Wabasca Projects
‘Amoco Canada Petroleum Co
Wabasca
Peace River Projects
‘Shell Canada Limited
Peace River
Athasbasca Projects
CS Resources Limited
Christina Lake
Gibson Petroleum Company
Gulf Canada Resources Ltd
‘Surmont
Japan Canada Oil Sands
Hangingstone
‘Solv-Ex Corporation
‘Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group
Fort McMurray plant
‘Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group
Fort McMurray plant
$100 milion
‘$43 milion
‘$250 million
‘$10 milion
‘$15 milion
$197 milion
$170 milion
‘$200 million
$320 million
1996-2000
1996-2000
1997-2000
immediate
1996-97
Immediate
1997-2001
Develop properties
using horizontal
well technologies:
18,000 bpd biturnen
production
Increase production
to 12,500 bpd
in situ bitumen
thermal development:
‘50,000 bpd
Test SAGD bitumen
from surface access
Increase production
from 3,000 bpd
Phase 1 SAGD
bitumen project:
41,500 bpd
Phase 2, f appropriate,
Increase production
10 20,000 bpd
1997 SAGD bitumen
Project
1997 Bitumen mine and
‘extraction complex:
14,000 bpd of
bitumen
Environmental
measures
Upgrader and plant
modifications:
Increase production
‘0 105,000 bpd of‘Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group
‘Steepbank Mine '$360 milion
‘Syncrude Canada Lid.
North Mine, Mildred Lake $500 milion
‘Syncrude Canada Ltd.
Aurora Mine, Mildred Lake $1.5 billion
2001-2006
light sweet crude
and custom blends
2001 New bitumen mine:
Increase production
40 105,000 bpd
1998 New bitumen mine
and debottienecking
of Mildred Lake
upgrading complex:
Production increase
to 82 million
bbis/year of light
sweet crude oil
‘New bitumen mine
‘and remote extraction
‘and debottienecking
of Mildred Lake
upgrading complex.
Production increase
to at least 94
million bbis/year.CHAPTER 2
HEAVY OIL AND TAR SANDS
2.1 Introduction
Heavy oil and tar sands are important energy sourees, currently making a significant
contribution to the overall energy supply of the United States and Canada. Table 2.1
lists the estimated heavy oil and tar sands resources of the world. It is evident that
the resource base is much larger than the in-place “conventional” oil, which is about
2 trillion barrels worldwide, with about a third recoverable. In the case of heavy oil
and tar sands, the recovery factor varies greatly (from a fraction of a percent to 80%)
from area to area, depending on the oil and the reservoir characteristics, as well as
the process to be used. We shall first define heavy oil and tar sands, and then
outline typical characteristics of the reservoirs.
2.2 Definitions ~~
Heavy oil and tar sands are petroleum or petroleum-like liquids or semi-solids
occurring in porous formations - mainly sands, but also consisting of carbonates. In
the 1982 UNITAR conference in Venezuela, certain definitions were agreed upon,
summarized below: :
Classification Viscosity Density at 15.6 C API Gravity
(ep at res. temp.) (kg/m3)
Heavy Crude 100-1000 943-1000 20-10
‘Tar Sand Crude >10000 1000 <10
‘These oils are to be characterized by viscosity and density (1000 kg/m3~62.4 Ib/ft3),
with density to be used only if viscosity measurements are not available. Heavy
crudes contain 3 wi% or more sulfur, and as much as 2000 ppm of vanadium. Nickel
and molybdenum are also frequently encountered.
2.3 Typical Reservoir Properties
Most of the heavy oil deposits occur in shallow (3000 ft or less), high permeability
(one to several darcies), high ‘porosity (around 30%) poorly consolidated sand
formations. The oil saturations tend to be high (50-80% pore volume), and formation
thicknesses are 50 to several hundred feet. All of these characteristics are desirablefor the application of oil recovery methods. Many reservoirs in California, Western
Venezuela and Alberta have similar characteristics. However, there are important
exceptions. For example, in Saskatchewan, with over 16 billion barrels of oil in
place, 90% of the oil occurs in formations less than 10 ft in thickness. An important
difference between different reservoirs is in the in situ oil viscosities. For example,
most California heavy oil viscosities are in the 1000-2000 cp range, while those in
Cold Lake, Alberta, are around 100,000 cp.
Other reservoir characteristics include pressure, which is somewhat less than the
hydrostatic head in Canada, and much less in some fields in California. For example,
the average pressure in the San Joaquin valley heavy oll reservoirs is 50-60 psi.
Reservoir temperatures differ considerably from area to area, The temperatures in
the heavy oil reservoirs of Cantla tend to be low for the depth, e.g. 60-80 F at depths
cof 1500-1800 ft, while those in Eastem Venezuela are frequently high, 150-180 F at
depths of 3000-4200 ft. This has a considerable impact on the in situ oil viscosity.
For example, the heavy oil in the Jobo field, in Eastern Venezuela, is mobile at
reservoir conditions, whereas the Athabasca bitumen in Canada is semi-solid, yet
the two are essentially identical.
2.4 Importance of Geology
Geology is the single most important factor determining the success of a heavy oil
recovery project. What aspect of the formation geology is critical would depend on
the recovery process. Geology is important in conventional methods such as
waterflooding also, but in heavy oil recovery it is more so because the injected fluids
(steam, air, oxygen, hot water) are costly and it is crucial that they flow in the
desired directions.
Permeability variation, in particular with depth, is to be expected. Large permeability
variations would imply highly uneven distribution of the injected fluid. If permeability
decreases with depth, the situation becomes worse, because gravity segregation of
fluids - always present - becomes more pronounced, leading to earlier breakthrough.
Vertical permeability modifies the effects of horizontal permeability variation,but only
if the horizontal and vertical permeability contrast is high, e.g. due to the presence of
tight streaks, shale stringers, etc. Given the geological description of an interval,
assuming that it is repeated over the project area (almost never true), it is possible
to devise an injection scheme (usually varying with time) that would utilize the
injected fluids to the greatest advantage.
‘An important, yet inadequately understood aspect of heavy oil recovery by thermal
methods, is the interaction of rock minerals and the injected fluids. It leads to the
formation of new minerals, swelling of certain clays, and migration of others. As aresult, there may be irreparable injectivity/productivity loss. Formation compaction
may also occur, as fluids are withdrawn, leading to similar damage. Frequently,
formation permeability is so high that some permeability loss can be tolerated. In
other instances, excessive damage has led to project failure. Laboratory screening
can often help to recognize problems of this type in advance, although the laboratory
results are often more pessimistic than field performance.
Important aspects of heavy oil formation geology include bottom water and high gas
saturation zones, which tend to act as thief zones for the injected fluids. Bottom
water can take many forms: it may consist of a low oil saturation zone, it may be &
transition zone, or it may a water sand, The water zone may even occur above the
oil zone ("top water"), as is the case in some formations in Athabasca and
California, The sand in the water zone is often fine-grained. It may be shaly also,
making it less permeable to -the injected fluids, and thus less detrimental.
Furthermore, shales stringers may be present at the base of the oil sand. The areal
extent of such permeability barriers would determine the effectiveness of the
recovery process employed.
vareug All an a9
abLo
|
d
TABLE 2.1 i
Heavy Oil and Tar Sends Deposits
ue Remate___Raers FA ]
We Wath? Wah Who We J}
Sonata y
“Atnabeses sm |
Micesble sm seam amt 0 Af
on tar 2000
Inbetwoce
Peace River 14930
Wines soe 200
(Ca Lake—Primcoe . «™ 0000
oydminner om ao
Met and 2 0
Cirtote Tange 198 sono }
rig eh no
Tout som 2210" a2
nied Stes
‘Calivoria mms 4
Keech 1 3 4
‘Tem 120
Van 28 ewe 2D ;
tee * o 1 3 }
rodeing elds en Ly
Tout 2 Tw am osm
erica mw " }
Venere Between 1N1291 Futon aM Sane wa Sa 1 J
we sto000
oer,
Sout Amesica ao = x6 }
Earope a nt a } }
‘Aen Bm ses! .
idle Bunt wo 7M kom
(furs for One, soon
‘Sood Aria, and
mine }
sratebie
USSR and ASIA wo som oom
Toul Between 12619 TITS ATONE SHEE S714 7}
od RIF 21375 iy
Scand tas Berwcen ea7so0 SALOMS HPS SOME N37
wed 979530 Gos
|
faa
]OWL_IN PLACE WORLDWIDE CALIFORNIA ‘70s STEAM INJECTION
{
ua : e
ci bod
uy i ,
‘ i ¢
; ig
uf 5 g
z : iG
‘ 5
Td z
U = STEAMFLOOD
( :
: [-—--—------—__-
~~
{ CYCLIC STEAMING
Le
PRODUCTION RATE DUE TO THE
APPLICATION OF THERMAL METHODS
IN CALIFORNIA
BE al |
i
f2
328 20
zis
EE2 wm
58
~ HBAVY OIL, Paroug All & Meldew Page2-sQo
SANTA MARIA
Les Angeles
Basin ———7
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OIL FIELDS
HBAVY @IL Parong All & Meldae
Page 2-6
Cy ac
Li Lo xCANADA TAR & HEAVY OIL SANDS
ere wT.
: |
‘i ieee
| X tHaMAsca
ay
Hanvy Olt Sends
Tort
HEAVY OIL FIELDS IN VENEZUELA
MBAVY OIL Farong Ali & Meléas Page 2-752. Birdwell, B.F., Subt, F.G., and Silberberg, LH.: "A Survey of Thermal Recovery
Operations in Texas Oil Fields”, Texas Petroleum Research Committee, Austin (1964).
53. Burk, R.G.: "Combustion Project is Making a Profit", Oil & Gas J. (Jan 18, 1965)
44,
54, Hardy, W.C., Fletcher, P.B., Shepard, J.C., Dittman, E.W., and Zadow, D.W.: “In
‘Situ Combustion Performance in a Thin Reservoir Containing High-Gravity Oil", JPT
(Feb. 1972) 199-208.
55. Anonymous: “Fireflood Peps Up Old Arkansas Field", Oil & Gas J, (Oct. 11, 1965)
100.
ae
Wm ewe
fe)
ny eee
La
wwRECOVERY PROCESSES
Due to the adverse characteristics of heavy oils and oil sands, such as high viscosity
and low gas solubility, conventional methods of recovery are rarely applicable. Primary
recovery is very low, averaging about 5 perceat of the oil-in-place. Alternative recovery
processes include thermal and non-thermal methods.
3.1 Thermal Methods
‘Thermal techniques aim at reducing oil viscosity in order to increase its mobility,
through the application of heat. A 400*F temperature increase reduces the viscouity of
most heavy oils to about 1 ep. This is accomplished either by hot fluid injection or by
underground combustion. The thermal processes curreatly in use are:
Cyclic steam stimulation is basically a single well operation, although sooner or later,
communication between the wells developsand the process becomes very complex. Steam
is injected into a well at a high rate for a short time (10 days to one month), following
which the well may be shut in for afew days for heat distribution. After that, the well is
allowed to flow or pumped, The oil rate increases rapidly toa high value, and stays at an
economic level for months, When the rate becomes uneconomic, the whole process is
repeated.
‘This is the most successful EOR method, and is usually the first stage in steamflood
development. It is the only economic oil recovery method in the tar sands of Canada and
the California coast.
RECOVERY PROCESSES Feroeg All & Molden Page 3-1Steamflooding, much like waterflooding, isa pattern drive, with arrays of injection and
production wells. In this case, the performances strongly dependent on the pattern size,
since heat loss to the surrounding rocks can consume a large proportion of the injected
heat. Steam is continuously injected into the injector, resulting in the formation of a
steam zone, which advances at an ever-decreasing rate. Steam overrides due to gravity.
‘Steam reduces the oil saturation within the steam zone to very low values, of the order of
10%.
When steam breakthrough occurs, the steam injection rate is reduced to a value that is.
enough to supply the heat loss. Ata later time steam is discontinued, and hot water may
be injected.
‘The oil recovery in a steamflood can be high, over 50% in many cases, but the oil-steam
ratio is lower than that in cyclic steam stimulation because of the higher heat loss.
In-Situ combustion (2ls0 called fireflooding) is « unique process because a portion
(about 10%) of the in-place oil is oxidized to generate heat. As such, the process has a
hhigh thermal efficiency. Air (or axygen-cnriched air, or even pure oxygen) must be
injected to oxidize the oil. Heats generated within a very narrow combustion zone at a
high temperature (around 100°C). Directly abead of the combustion zone, cracking of
the oil occurs, leading to deposition of a heavy fraction ("coke"), which burns to support
combustion.
‘There is usually severe gravity override of the combustion zone, as a result it is more
nearly horizontal than vertical. Once breakthrough occurs in a producer, well
temperatures increase steeply, and operation becomes difficult and costly. At the same
time, however, the oil viscosity is greatly lowered so the oil production rates are also at
a peak. Cooling of the producers may be needed. Corrosion, a problem in in sita
combustion, becomes ever more severe. Largevolumes of flue gasare produced, causing
mechanical problems such as low pump efficiency, abrasion, erosion, etc., as well as
reservoir oil flow restriction due to high gas saturation.
An important advance in in situ combustion is water injection with air (wet combustion).
‘Water helps to transport the heat accumulatedin the “burned” sand downstream, and thus
increases the thermal efficiency of the process.
‘Well over 100 firefloods have been conducted, with relatively few clear successes.
Hot waterfloodiag is seldom employed because heat lostes in surface lines, wellbore
and formation, cause a large drop in temperature and reduce its effectiveness in
decreasing the oil viscosity. Nevertheless, itis a process to consider for deep heavy oil
formations, where steam is not likely to be successfal. An example is the Kaparuk field
in Alaska.
RECOVERY PROCESSES Farong Ali & Meldse Page 3-2
CJ bo) ew CI
wo
3
tse ws cs
iLWellbore heating is mainly used to heat the formation in the vicinity of the wellbore,
and is seldom used.
3.2.Non-Thermal Methods
Non-thermal heavy oil recovery techniques™ could be considered for moderately
viscous oils (50 - 200 ep), thin formation (less than 30 ft) low permeabilities (lets than
1 md) and depths greater than 3000 ft such as those of Wyoming and California. Non-
thermal methods serve to reduce the viscosity of oil, increase the viscosity of the
displacing fluid, or reduce the interfacial tension, The major non-thermal processes are:
Polymer flooding: In this process, a water soluble polymer is used to decrease the
mobility ratio of a waterflood by increasing the drive water viscosity, and primarily
improve the volumetric sweep efficiency. It is applicable in the 10 to 150 cp viscosity
range. Laboratory and simulation studies showed that the oil recovery isgenerally higher
than waterflood oil recovery”, perhaps 1 to 5 percent additional. Polymer flooding
was reported to be successful in Huntington Beach, California™ and in Taber South,
Canada™, In Lloydminster, the process was only marginally successful.
Surfactant flooding: A surfactant reduces the oil-water interfacial tension and
increases the oil displacement efficiency. Surfactant flooding has been employed mostly
in light oil reservoirs". ‘The main disadvantage of this method, as also of other
‘chemical methods, isthe adsorption of the surfactant on the rock matrix, which causes the
surfactant slug tolote its effectiveness at a short distance from the injection well. At the
present time, few if any surfactant floods have been successful in light or heavy oils,
Causticflooding: A suitable alkali (asually sodium hydroxide or caustic) is injected in
‘a dilute aqueous solution, which reacts with the acid compounds in the crude oil toform
surfactants in situ. These surfactants lead to reduction in interfacial tension, and also
the emulsion sformed asa result helpin improving the mobility ratioin anumber of ways.
A concise discussion of the process has been given by Johnson,
One of the problems with alkaline flooding is the consumption of the chemical (caustic)
by the rock. ‘This occurs by a number of mechanisms, including clay reactions.
Furthermore, interfacial tension studies using caustic show that considerable
concentrations (often approaching 1%) are necessary in order to effect a significant
reduction in the interfacial tension. Combinations with polymer flooding and surfactant
have also been tested. Because in caustic flooding the chemical has to react with the oil,
its flow pattern isimportant. Alsoto be considered is the dilution of the injected solution
by the formation water, as well as the effect of salts on interfacial tension. Causticfloods
have had limited succets in the field, Such a flood should be considered for a given crade
RECOVERY PROCESSES Farong All & Meléan Page 3-3the acid number is 0.5 mg KOH/g crude, or greater. Heavy oils appear to be better
suited for this process.
Emulsion flooding: The emulsion is prepared at the surface and subsequently injected
into the formation. The emulsions cause a decrease in the water mobility and an
improvement in the volumetric sweep efficiency". This process has yet to be field
tested,
Immiscible carbon dioxide flooding: Recent work has shown that injection of carbon
‘water, in a carefully planned strategy, can substantially increase oil
recovery over awaterflood (20 percent incremental under optimal conditions), in thecase
of moderately viscous oils (<1000¢p). Carbon dioxide lowers oil viscosity, increases oil
volume, and reduces oil-water interfacial tension”.
Carbonated waterflooding: This process has been employed in the past with limited
success. The aim isto inject carbon dioxide and water simultaneously.
‘Wettability alteration flooding: The aim in this process is to change the rock surface
from oil-wet towater-wet. Thisis accomplished by injecting an acid, such as hydrochloric
acid, or sodium hydroxide, with drive water™”.
Waterflooding: It is inexpentive and simple to use, however, the displacement and
sweep efficiencies arelow. The additional recovery over primary averages 3to 10 percent
of the oil in-place. This method has been used with some success in the Lloydminster
fields, and in other areas, e.g., North Nocona Field of Texas™ and Inglewood Field,
California™,
On the whole, non-thermal methods have been largely unsuccessful for heavy oil
recovery. A survey of 62 field projects™ showed that only immiscible CO, has been.
marginally successful in the tests reported.
SMPA Jan 1967
RECOVERY PROCESSES Paroeg All & Meléas Page 3-4
co eo co lo
wo
~~ oJ LJ
ee
ComesTE
a)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
aie
8)
9)
10)
1)
12)
13)
RECOVERY PROCESSES Farowg Ali & Molden
REFERENCES
Anonymous: "Oxygen Firefloods Gaining Acceptance",
Oilweek (March 11, 1985) 22.
Anonymous: "“lieavy Crude Is Flooded in Canada",
Petroleum Week (April 17, 1959) 27-28.
Anonymous: “Fireflood Successful After Waterflood",
Oil and Gas Journal (October 6, 1969) 102.
Anonymous: “Will Thermal Flood Boom Rival Gold Rush",
California Oil World (February, 1966) 6.
Anonymous: “Success Leads to Fireflood Expansion",
O41 and Gas Journal (April 19, 1965) 72.
Anonymous: "The Heat's On Viscous Crude", Of] and Gas
Journal (October 19, 1964) 75.
Anonymous: “"Fireflood Peps Up Old Arkansas Field",
Oi] and Gas Journal (October 11, 1965) 100.
Anonymous: "Shell Gets Green Light for Peace River
Expansion", Oilweek ‘(November 19, 1984) 8-9.
Anonymous: Submission to ERCB by Esso on the Cold
Lake Project, Vol. II, Section 4, Calgary (1978).
Anonymous: “Esso Adds Four More Phases to Booming
Cold Lake Project", Enhanced Recovery Week (November 4,
1985) 1.
Adams, R.H.,.and Khan, A.M.: "Cyclic Steam Injection
Project Performance Analysis and Some Results of a
Continuous Steam Displacement Pilot", Journal of
Petroleum Technology (January, 1969) 95-100.
Alikhan, A.A., and Faroug Ali, S.M.: “Current Status
of Nonthermal Heavy Oil Recovery", SPE 11846,
Presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting,
Salt Lake City, UT (May 23-25, 1983). J
Amelin, I.D., Sergeev, A.I. and Geikhman, G.M.: | “Thermal
Stimulation of Formation by a Moving Combustion Front
(Experimental Industrial Tests on the Pavlova Gort
Reservoir) (in Russian), Neftyance Khozaistvo (January,
41.
Page 3-5.tu
14) Birdwell, B.F., Subt, F.G., and Silberberg, I.H.? 7
“A Survey of Thermal Recovery Operations in Texas
Oil Fields", Texas Petroleum Research committee,
Austin (1964).
1S) Bott, R.C.: “Cyclic Steam Project in a Virgin Tar
Re
a
voir", Journal of Petroleum Technology (May, 1967)
S91. 7
16) Buckles, R.S.: "Steam Stimulation Heavy Oil Recovery y
at Cold Lake, Alberta", SPE 7994, presented at the
California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California )
(april 18-20, 1979). J
17) Burke, R.G.: “Combustion Project Is Making a Profit",
Oil and Gas Journal (January 18, 1965) 44.
18) Coffer, H.F., and Dew, J.N.: “Current Progress of
Pield Operations Using Newer Recovery Methods", paper }
presented at Institute on Economics of the Petroleum
Industry, Dallas (March, 1964).
19) deNevers, N.: “Carbonated Waterflooding", World Oil
(September, 1966) 93-96.
20) Dietrich, W.K., and Willhite, G.P.: "Steam Soak Results -
Sisquoc Pool, Cat Canyon Oil Field, Santa Barbara
County", Petroleum Industry Conference on Thermal
Recovery, Los Angeles (June 6, 1966) 61-68.
es
21) Dietzman, W.D., Carrales, M., Jr., and Jirik, C.J.:
“Heavy Crude Oil Reservoirs in the United States:
A Survey", B. of Mines Inf. Circ. 8263 (1965).
cs
22) Dillabough, J.A., and Prats, M.: “Recovering Bitumen
From Peace River Deposits", Oil and Gas Journal
(November 11, 1974) 186-197,
23) Doscher, T.M., Labelle, R.W., Sawatsky, L.H., and
.'Zwicky, R.W.: "Steam Drive Successful in Canad
Oil sands", Petroleum Engineer (January, 1964) 71-78.
24) Doscher, T.M.: “Technical Problems in In-Situ Methods )
for Recovery of Bitumen From Tar Sands", Panel
Discussion 13(6), 7th World Petroleum Congre: -
Mexico City (April, 1967). ]
25) Elliot, C.E., and Ferrer, J.: “Recovery of Viscous
Oils From Stratified Reservoirs Using Polymer Solutions",
SPE 4846, presented at the SPE-European Spring Meeting, J
Amsterdam (May 29-30, 1974).
a)
RECOVERY PROCESSES Ferong Ali & Molden romps( *26)
27)
ff 28)
29)
30)
31)
l 32)
33)
{ “34)
: 36)
( 37)
35),
Emery, M.N.: “Small Steam Flood Works for Independent",
Petroleum Engineer (September, 1966) 63-67.
Faroug Ali, S.M.: "A Current Appraisal of In-Situ
Combustion Field Tests", Journal of Petroleum Technology
(April, 1972) 477-486.
Faroug Ali, S.M.: “Current Status of Steam Injection
As a Heavy Oil Recovery Method", Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology (January-March, 1974) 54-68.
Faroug Ali, S.H.: ‘Heavy Oi1 Recovery ~ Principles,
Practicality, Potential, and Problems", SPE 4935,
presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting,
Billings, Montana (May 15-16, 1974).
Faroug Ali, S.M.: “Non-thermal Heavy Oil Recovery
Methods", SPE 5893, presented at the Rocky Mountain
Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming (May 11-12, 1976).
Faroug Ali, S.M.: “Multiphase, Multidimensional
Simulation of In-Situ Combustion", SPE 6896, presented
at the 52nd Annual Fall Meeting, Denver, Colorado
(October 9-12, 1977).
Faroug Ali, S.M., and Meldau, R.P.: "Current Stean-
flood Technology", Journal of Petroleum Technology
(October, 1979) 1332-1342.
Faroug Ali, 5.M.: “Effect of Bottom Water and Gas
Cap on Thermal Recovery", SPE 11732, presented at the
53rd Annual California Regional Meeting, Ventura,
California (March 23-25, 1983).
Gates, C.F., and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: "Field Results of
South Belridge Thermal Recovery Experiment", 7
AIME 213 (1958) 236-244.
Gates, C.F., and Sklar, I.: "Combustion as a Primary
Recovery Process - Midway Sunset Field", Journal of
Petroleum Technology (August, 1971) 981-986.
Gates, C.F., and Brewer, S.W.: "Steam Injection Into
the D and E Zone, Tulare Formation, South Belridge
Field, Kern County, California", Journal of Petroleum
Technology (March, 1975) 343-348.
Green, K.B.: "The Fireflood: Cox Penn Sand", Oil
and Gas Journal (July 17, 1967) 66.
RECOVERY PROCESSES Farong All & Meldae Page 3-738)
39)
40)
4.)
42)
43)
44)
45)
46)
47)
RECOVERY PROCESSES Faroug All & Meléae
Hall, A.L., and Bowman, R.W.: “Operation and Performance
of the Slocum Thermal Recovery Project", Journal of
Petroleum Technology (April, 1973) 402-408.
Hardy, W.C., Fletcher, P.B., Shepard, J.C., Dittman, E.W.,
and zadow, D.w.: “In-Situ Combustion Performance in
a Thin Reservoir Containing High-Gravity 0i1",
Journal of Petroleum Technology (February, 1972)
199-208.
Harvie, J.D., Nicholls, J.H., and Winestock, A.G.
“Phe Outlook for Canadian Oil Sands Development",
presented at the 7lst National Meeting of American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, Dallas, Texas
(February 20-23, 1972).
Inks, C.G. a Lahring, R.I.: “Controlled Evaluation
of a Surfactant in Secondary Recovery", Journal of
Petroleum Technology (November, 1968) 1320-1324.
Jameson, C.E.: “The Lloydminster Heavy Oil Area",
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology (July-
September, 1973) 17-19.
Jenkins, G.R., and Kirkpatrick, J.W.: “Twenty Years
Operations of an In-Situ Combustion Project", presented
at the 29th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum
Society of CIM, Calgary, Alberta (June 13-16, 1978).
Jennings, H.¥., dr., Johnson, C.£., Jr., and.McAuliffe, C.D.:
"A Caustic Waterflooding Process for Heavy Oils",
Journal of Petroleum Technology (December, 1974)
1344-1352,
Johnson, C.E., dr.: “Status of Caustic and Emulsion
Methods", SPE 5561, presented at the 50th Annual
Fall Meeting, Dallas, Texas (September 28-October 1,
1975).
Kemp, E.M.: “Cold Lake Project: the Resource, the
Particular Production Techniques, and Related Challenges",
Proceedings of the Saskatchewan Heavy Oil Conference
(November 28-30, 1984).
Knight, B.L., and Rhudy, J.S.: "Recovery of High
Viscosity Crudes by Polymer Flooding", presented at
the 26th Annual Meeting of CIM, Banff, Alberta (June 11-
13, 1975).
(ea)
cI
mc{
48)
49)
50)
51)
52)
53)
54)
55)
56).
57)
58)
Leach, R.O., Wagner, O.R., Wood, H.W., and Harpke, C.F.:
"A Laboratory and Field Study of Wettability Adjustment
in Waterflooding", Trans. AIME, Vol. 225 (1962)
206-212.
Long, R.J.: “Case History of Steam Soaking in the
Kern River Field, California", Journal of Petroleum
Technology (September, 1965) 989-993.
Lozanski, W.R., and Martin, I.: “Taber South-Cana
First Polymer Flood", Paper 7011, presented at the
21st Annual Meeting of CIM, Calgary, Alberta (May 6-8,
1970).
McAuliffe, C.D.: "Crude-Oil-In-Water Emulsions to
Improve Fluid Flow in an Oil Reservoir", Journal of
Petroleum Technology (June, 1973) 721-726.
Miller, K.A.: “Interim Progress Report on Husky's
Pikes Peak Steam Pilot”, presented at the First
Annual Technical Meeting of the South Saskatchewan
Section of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Regina,
Saskatchewan (September 15-17, 1985).
Nicholls, J.H., and Luhning, R.W.: “Heavy Oil Sand
‘In-Situ Pilot Plants in Alberta (Past and Present)",
aoeae of Canadian Petroleum Technology (July-September,
1977) 50-61.
Oefelein, F.H., and Walker, J.W.: “California Flood
Yields Profitable Recovery of Heavy Oil from Multi-
layered Reservoir", Journal of Petroleum Technology
(may, 1964) 509-514.
Oganov, K.A.: “Fundamentals of Thermal Stimulation of
Ce (In Russian), Nedra Press, Moscow
967).
Parrish, D.R., Rausch, R.W., Beaver, K.W., and Wood, H.W.:
round Combustion in the Shannon Pool, Wyoming",
Journal of Petroleum Technology (February, 1962)
197-205.
Payne, R.W., and Zambrano, G.: “Cyclic Steam Injection
Helps Raise Venezuela Production", Oil and Gas Journal
(May 24, 1965) 78-82.
Petcovici, V.: “Etude Complexe sur 1'Explotacion par
Combustion in situ du Gisement d'Huile de Suplacu de
Barcau" (In Romanian), ICPTG, Cimpina, Romania (1970).
RECOVERY PROCESSES Paroeg All & Meldes Page 3-959)
60)
61)
62)
63)
64)
65)
66)
67)
68)
69)
Phizackerley, P.H., and Scott, L.0.: “The Major Tar
Sand Deposits of the World", P.D. 13, 7th World
Petroleum Congress, Mexico (1967).
Prasad, B.D., and Lillo, H.0.: “Overview of Oil Sands
Development and its Role in Meeting Canada's Energy
Needs", paper presented at the International Mining
Exhibition and Conference, Calgary, Alberta (August 26-
28, 1980).
Prats, M.: “Peace River Steam Drive Scaled Model
Experiments", Oil Sands of Canada-Venezuela, Canadian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Edmonton, Alberta
(1978) 346-363.
Price, £.0., and McLaren, G.R.: “Steam Cyclic Operations
at Midway-Sunset Sections 15A and 23A", Petroleum
Industry Conference on Thermal Recovery, Los Angeles,
California (June 6, 1966) 69-74.
Pursley, S.A., and Graham, H.L.: "Borregos Field
Surfactant Pilot Test", Journal of Petroleum Technology
(June, 1975) 695-700.
Reddy, G.S., Adams, D.M., and Meldau, R.F.: "Summary
of Enhanced Oil Recovery Pilots for Oil Sands and
Heavy Oil in Canada", second UNITAR Conference,
Caracas, Venezuela (1982).
Simm, C.: “Improved Firefloods May cut Steam's
Advantages", World Oil (March, 1972) 59-62.
Simon, R., and Grave, D.J.: “Generalized Correlations
for Predicting Solubility, Swelling and Viscosity
Behavior of CO,-Crude Oil Systems", Journal of
Petroleum Technology (January, 1965) 102-106.
Slater, G.E., and Paroug Ali, S.M.: “Two Dimensional
Polymer Flood Simulation", SPE 3003, presented at
the 45th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Texas (October 4-7,
1970).
Sutton, E.: “Waterflood Performance in a High Viscosity
O11 Reservoir’, Journal of Petroleum Technology (December,
1963), 1281-1284.
Ustick, R.E., and Hillhouse, J.D.: “Comparison of
Polymer Flooding and Waterflooding at Huntington Beach,
California", Journal of Petroleum Technology (September,
1967) 1103-1111.
RECOVERY PROCESSES Faron All & Meléas Page 3-10
470)
0)
72)
73)
74)
75)
Wagner, 0.R., and Leach, R.0.: “Improving Oil
Displacement Efficiency by Wettability Adjustment",
Trans. AIME, Vol. 216(1959) 65.
Webber, H.J.: “The Oil Sands of Alberta", presented
at the 18th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum
Society of CIM, Banff, Alberta (May, 1967).
Welker, J.R., and Dunlop, D.D. “Physical Properti:
of Carbonated Oils", Journal of Petroleum Technology
(August, 1963) 873-876.
Wilson, L.A., and Root, P.J.: “Cost Comparison of
Reservoir Heating Using Steam or Air", Journal of
Petroleum Technology (February, 1966) 233-239.
Winestock, A.G.: “Developing A Steam Recovery Technology",
presented at Oil Sands Symposium, Can. Soc. Petr. Geol.,
Calgary, Alberta (September 5-9, 1973).
Yoelin, §.D.: “The TM-Sand Steam Stimulation Project,
Huntington Beach Offshore Field - A Remarkable Example
of a Heavy Oil Reservoir Responding to the Cyclic
Steam Injection Process", SPE 3104, presented at the
45th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Texas (October 4-7,
1970).
RECOVERY PROCESSES Farong Ali & Meldan Page 3-11CHAPTER 4
STEAM AND OIL FLOW
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter we shall extend the main concepts of fluid flow in porous media to the
case of steam/water-oil flow. Isothermal three-phase flow in porous media is complex
enough, but the presence of a varying temperature - varying with position and time - and a
condensing vapor (steam, hydrocarbon vapor) greatly adds to the complexity. The
discussion will be limited to general fearures of reservoir flow, when steam is injected. Any
detailed description of non-isothermal three-phase flow would require mathematical
simulation,
42. Waerfiond ad
‘Waterflooding is the most important oil recovery method beyond primary recovery.
‘Waterflood oil recovery is determined by how much oil is left upon the injection of a certain
volume (pore volumes) of water. This is intrinsically governed by the mobility ratio M, and
the capillary number N,. Mobility 2, in darcies/cp, of a fluid is the ratio of the effective
permeability k (darcies) to the viscosity }1 (cp) of the fluid, and mobility ratio is defined as the
ratio of the mobility of the displacing fluid jing, to that of the displaced fluid ped, i.e.
MeAing/Aed-
‘The values of the effective permeabilities can be determined from the relative permeability
curves (¢.g. effective permeability to oil ko=krok, where kyo is relative permeability to oil
(fraction), and k is absolute permeability in darcies. There are three ways of doing that, one
of which is to use the value of the relative permeabilities at the end point saturations.
Figure 4.1 shows a plot of displaceable oil as a function of mobility ratio for various
volumes of water injected. Clearly, for a highly unfavourable mobility ratio many pore
‘volumes of water will have to be injected in order to attain the “residual oil saturation.”
‘The above discussion takes no account of viscous fingering. Such instabilities form as a
result of large (unfavourable) mobility ratios. Under such conditions, any minor
heterogeneity can trigger viscous fingering, which would result in inefficient displacement of
il by the displacing fluid. Such instabilities are present in all oil recovery processes, given
that the governing mobility ratio is large. In complex recovery methods, an overall mobility
ratio can be defined on a local and temporal basis, with respect to a selected displacement
front.
STEAM AND OIL FLOW Faroug Ali & Meldau Page4tFigure 4.2 shows a plot of the residual oil saturation as a function of the capillary
number, Ne. Itis clear that only for very large values of the capillary number the waterflood
residual oil saturation (the value on the left-hand axis) shows an appreciable decrease. The
capillary number can be increased through an increase in velocity (or potential gradient), or &
decrease in the interfacial tension. The latter approach is more practical.
4.3 Effect of Temperature
‘A temperature increase leads to a drastic reduction in oil viscosity, much greater than that
for water, Appendix D gives correlations and methods for calcualting oil and water
viscosities at elevated temperatures. Figure 2.1 (b) (p. D-6) gives generalized plots for
California oils. As an example, the viscosity of a 1000 cp oil at a reservoir temperature of
80° F (27° C) decreases to 1 cp at a temperature of 350° F (177° C), The corresponding
decrease in the viscosity of water is from 1 cp t0 0.15 cp. It is clear that the mobility ratio
would decrease as a result of the displacement of oil by hot rather than cold water (in this
example, from 1000 to 6, assuming that the effective permeabilities are same for oil and
water).
‘The relative permeabilities are also affected by an increase in temperature, This is
attributed to the presence of clays and minerals in the rock, as well as the wettability and
contact angle changes with an increase in temperature. In most instances, the residual oil
saturation decreases and the irreducible water saturation increases with an increase in
temperature, Additionally, the water relative permeability appears to decrease, while the oil
relative permeability increases. On the whole, the oil tends to become more mobile as a result
of a temperature increase, not even considering the viscosity decrease. Figure 4.3 shows oil
and water relative permeability curves at two different temperatures.
‘The oil-water interfacial tension would decrease by a factor of about 10 in the previous
example. Although the capillary number increases considerably, other effects are more
important.
4.4 Oil Displacement by Steam
‘The displacement mechanism of oil by steam is more complex than the above description. In
fact, on a microscopic basis, steam tends to behave as a viscous fluid. If a steam “finger”
gets too far ahead of the main front, it would condense, because of the low temperatures
there. As a result, the “effective” mobility ratio in a steam displacement appears to be
favourable. Figure 4.3 shows such a plot.
‘The process of oil/water displacement by steam involves other important effects as well,
arising from the heat transfer to the cold oil ahead of the front and the gravity segregation of
STEAM AND OIL FLOW Faroug Ali & Meldau Page 4-2
us
wo
(ey
wisteam. The discussion of the previous section assumed a constant temperature throughout.
In reality, the oil ahead of the steam is cold. At the same time, steam tends to segregate
toward the upper part of the formation due to its low density, Asa result, the oil at the top is
heated and mobilized, and driven by steam. The movement and voidage of oil further
__ Promotes steam flow in the upper pants of the formation. Thus steam tends to segregate and
‘spread over the top of the formation. ‘Subsequent advance of the steam zone is downwards,
which is accelerated if the wells are produced at an appreciable rate.
‘Steam segregation, and its spreading over the formation is advantageous, although it
Teads to a low vertical sweep in thick formations. If steam were of the same density as oil,
and there were no gravity segregation of steam, the displcement of oil would be essentially
frontal, with a stable steam front. As a result, very high injection pressures (detrimental to
‘steamflooding from the point of view of latent heat content, heat loss, etc.) would be needed.
In fact, under such conditions, steamflooding of very high viscosity oils would be
impractical. Thus gravity segregation of steam, the initially conductive, and later, convective
heating of the oil below, and carry-over of the mobilized oil by the steam condensate flowing
downwards, make steamflooding work in even very viscous oils. ‘There is still an upper
limit to oil viscosity, when the in-place oil just does not get heated fast enough, as in tar
sands, Even in those cases, it is possible to employ some form of steamflooding.
Notice also that the volume of steam is an important factor. One volume of water at S00
psia (3.4 MPa) occupies 50 volumes as steam. As a result, steam like a gas is capable of
‘sweeping a large volume, while unlike a gas heating the oil and condensing. Steam is thus a
condensable gas, like carbon dioxide, which dissolves in the oil and reduces oil viscosity.
‘However, it is vastly more effective than carbon dioxide: while the viscosity reduction by
carbon dioxide is of the order of 10, that by steam is of the order of 1000, Also, carbon
dioxide does not dissolve instantaneously. The large volume of steam is particularly
significant in the steam zone, after steam breakthrough. At this point, the pressure drop in
the steam zone is low, and it is possible to reduce steam rates considerably. (It should be
noted, however, that this requires careful engineering, because often the oil rate drops as
‘Steam rate is reduced, due to excessive condensation, and other phenomena).
SMFA Oct 1989
STEAM AND OIL FLOW Faroug Ali & Meldau Page 4-3mS,
“AS. VOLOF WATERBUSCTED:
8
5
Residual Olt Saturation, %
1 1 v0 To00 10°? 10 TeF wy
Mobility Ratio, M Capillary Number J
Fig. 4.m Effect of mobility ratio on vaterflocd
oil recovery.
m1 mie as min meee,
owen aw mee )
Fig. 4. 4-Cateulated reciprocal effective mobility rallo f i
Pott seremnrarsior aetna alge
the |
id he slsary entation presse er nat
ofthe capaced fila la Talaled Hoeery to the
Bratsre by rane of peal an tone
0) 0 Srcthermal tamper and yeoman
waren earuntion Froese races’)
Fig. 4.3—Wwat relative permeabil
ot ernie nated ea Pot aca)
STEAM AND OIL FLOW Faroug Ali & Meldau Page 4-4ce & 7? cam
j
U
mM
5.1
CHAPTER 5
FORMATION HEATING BY HOT FLUID INJECTION
When a hot fluid - gas, liquid, or a mixture of the two - is injected into an oil-bearing
porous medium, heat is transferred to the rock matrix and the interstitial fluids, as well as to
the adjacent nonproductive formations, often referred to as overburden and underburden.
‘Such heat transfer is primarily due to conduction and convection; it is complicated by phase
changes and the resulting heat exchange. In the following, we shall discuss a few basic
approaches to the calculation of heated areas, and, in one case, temperature distributions.
These methods are based upon a number of simplifying assumptions, which permit the
closed form solution of the problem. Without-such simplifications, numerical solution
would be necessary, which falls in the realm of reservoir simulation - the subject of another
chapter.
Heat Transfer Mechanism
In hot fluid injection, heat is transferred to the rock matrix and the fluids by conduction
and convection. As the injected fluid partially displaces the oil, water, and gas in place, it
carries the heat into the pore spaces. The in-place fluids are heated by conduction, and the
displaced fluids are heated by conduction and convection, with either predominating,
depending on the injected fluid type, and the oil viscosity. The conductive heat transfer to
the rock matrix helps to equalize the solid and the fluid temperatures, which are usually
assumed to be equal in hot fluid injection computations. However, the type of fluid will
determine the time to reach such thermal equilibrium. For instance, the heat transfer
coefficient in the case of condensing steam is much higher than in the case of hot water; this
may partially be responsible for the poor sweep in the latter case.
Usually there is a vertical temperature gradient in a formation into which fluid is
injected, e.g. parallel to the bedding plane. In some heat injection calculations, the
temperature is assumed to be constant along any vertical plane (j.e., “infinite” vertical
thermal conductivity).
‘There is invariably a temperature gradient along the injection path. However, in a
number of mathematical treatments of steam injection, the temperature in the "steam zone”
is assumed to be constant, so that at any time there are only two temperatures, the
temperature T, in the steam zone, abruptly dropping to Tp, the original reservoir
temperature (ie., the so-called "step function” temperature profile). This simplified picture
is a good approximation to the actual temperature distribution in steam injection,
od5.2
Heat is transferred to the overburden and the underburden from the heated sand, into
which the hot fluid is being injected. This heat transfer is by conduction, since there is no
fluid flow. ‘The overall process, however, is complex, because, with the advance of the
heat front in the sand, the adjacent formations are exposed to temperature changes for
varying lengths of time. The resulting temperature gradients give rise to flow of heat in
two or three dimensions in the overburden and underburden .
‘The net outcome of the above mechanisms is that the heat front travels more slowly
than the fluid front in any heat injection method.
‘At a given temperature, T, (saturation temperature, corresponding to the prevailing
pressure, p,), while hot water carries only sensible heat, hy, steam additionally contains
latent heat, Ly as discussed in Chapter III. This difference in the nature of steam and
water is responsible for the contrast in formation heating by either fluid. Hot water must
experience a temperature drop in order to transfer heat to the rock and the fluids. Steam, on
the other hand, can transfer all of its latent heat without any change in temperature,
‘When steam is injected into an oil-bearing formation at temperature, TR , it displaces a
certain fraction of the in-place oil, while condensing and heating the rock and the fluids
simultaneously. ‘The condensate formed, still at temperature T, , moves ahead of the
freshly injected steam, preheating the rock farther ahead. Under idealized conditions (viz.
no gravity segregation of steam, uniform thickness, injection over entire thickness, and no
pressure drop - ie., temperature drop - in the steam-invaded zone), it could be postulated
that the heated zone is at a constant temperature, T , extending from the injection end to the
point where the temperature “abruptly” drops from Ts to TR. Marx and Langenheim (5.1)
first postulated such a picture for steam injection. Later work by Mandl and Volek (5.2)
showed that in spite of the apparent simplicity of the Marx-Langenheim model, it does in
fact yield an answer close to the exact answer for some cases. We shall first consider the
Marx-Langenheim approach, and then discuss the more comprehensive Mandl-Volek
treatment,
Figure 5.1 shows the idealized temperature and steam quality distributions for steam
injection into a formation under idealized conditions noted in the previous paragraph.
(Steam quality can be translated into steam (dry) saturation, Sse , in the pore spaces, since
the formation water is part of the "wet" steam.) The heated zone, called the "steam zone"
hereinafter, encompasses the volume of the rock and fluids heated to steam temperature, Ts
regardless of the steam quality. Marx-Langenheim treatment in fact implies that the
condensate transfers the sensible heat (to the rock and fluids and the overburden and
eae eee
LI ft
ee
co
oe
eaeHeat Loss
nnacreerase
ad Heat Loss
U Steam
500
Temp.
(F) Reservoir
Qo
0
| Steam
Quality, 50)
{ n
| 106
; Key Assumptions
* No Gravity Effects
P Entire Thickness Heated to Steam Temperature
| No Hot Water Flow Ahead of Condensation Front
- “Homogeneous Sands and Shale
{ “No Pressure Drop
u “Constant Injection Rate
Figure 5.1 Schematic representation of the Merx-Lengenhelm
model for reservoir heating by steam injection,5.4
underburden) over an "infinitesimal" distance, which constitutes the so-called condensation
front. Consequently, the condensate leaves the condensation front at the reservoir
temperature, TR.
Under conditions described above, a heat balance, at any time, t, gives
Heat injection = Heat loss rate to the overburden + Heating rate of the rock and
rate ‘and underburden fluids to temperature, Ts
or
= +d ca
For steam injection at a rate of ig, B/D (kg/s) (water equivalent), the beat injection rate
in BTU/hr (kJ/s or kW) is: [Ignore 350/24 for SI units)
= (Fis ((oy-n) + fly)
1350/24) i, ( cy Ts-Te) + far Ly) oF
where fg is quality, fraction; and hy, hp, and Ly are enthalpies, BTU/Ib (kJ/kg),
of saturated water, water at reservoir temperature, and vaporization (latent heat
respectively.
If the formation volumetric heat capacity is Ms BTU/ft3-°F (kJ/m3-°C), then the
ee eae ae
G=M, 5-7) Gt i
Where Vs is the bulk volume of the steam zone. If the heat loss term can be neglected, it
is a simple matter to obtain Vas a function of time, Normally this is not so, and the heat
loss term must be taken into account, so that the heat balance results in a differential
equation. The solution of this equation gives Vs (bulk volume) in cubic feet (m3) as
follows:
Ve QMBPF
** Tiksge Moo (Ts TH) 64)
Here F, is a function of the dimensionless time, tp, as follows:
aoe
Fy =e" erfe /tp +2 h 1 65)
Dae eee eceeeeecmmeeees
Jmo
{
a
5.5
where erfc denotes the complementary error function, and the dimensionless time, tp, is
given by
=A KnopMop
2 "2
eet (6.6)
Here, knob is thermal conductivity of the overburden, in BTU/hr -ft-°F (kW/m-°C); Mob
is the heat capacity of the overburden and Ms that of the heated sand, both in BTU/f3-°F
(ki/m3.°C); t is time in hours (seconds in SI), and by is gross thickness, in ft (m). We
often use steamflood time in years, so please remember to convert to hours (sec) to
calculate tp,
Figure 5.2 gives a plot of F, vs. tp, which can be used to obtain Fj. Some
engineers may find tabulated values convenient so these are given in Table 5.1. Many
mathematical approximations of the first term in the expression for Fj are available in
handbooks of mathematical functions, which can be used to obtain an exact value for F}.
‘Van Lookeren (5.3) gives the following approximation for F), which has a maximum error
of less than 3%:
tp’
to
Fie Tyas Vp (5.2)
‘Steam Zone Growth Rate
Notice that
oF;
to
are erfe Vp = Fy Co
‘The function Fz is useful for calculating steam zone growth rate, which will be used to
calculate the oil production rate. It is also useful for calculating the critical time in the
‘Mandl-Volek treatment. Figure 5.3 shows a plot of Fp vs. tp, and tabulated data are
given in Table 5.1.
‘Sham Injection Heat Bt
The efficiency of heating a formation by steam injection can be expressed as the fraction
of the heat injected which remains in the steam zone at a given at a given time:
B, = FL
b (5.9)
Correspondingly, cumulative heat loss is Qioss= 1 - Es = 1- Fi/tp.
Itis interesting to note that the heat loss is a function of tp only, which is given by
Eq, (5.6). Considering that the thermal properties vary litte from formation to formation,
efficiency is primarily a function of time and thickness; Qloss inecreases as t increases,
ae