See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264823391

Artificial geothermal energy potential of steam-flooded heavy oil reservoirs

Article  in  International Journal of Oil Gas and Coal Technology · January 2011

DOI: 10.1504/IJOGCT.2011.037743

CITATIONS READS
18 419

5 authors, including:

Gioia Falcone Catalin Teodoriu

University of Glasgow University of Oklahoma
205 PUBLICATIONS   2,231 CITATIONS    265 PUBLICATIONS   2,474 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Maria A. Barrufet Oladele Bello

Texas A&M University Baker Hughes Incorporated
181 PUBLICATIONS   3,162 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   510 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Integration of 3D Time-Lapse Seismic Data into Reservoir Modelling View project

Largest Stick Slip experimental simulator View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Oladele Bello on 26 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J.Oil, Gas and Coal Technology , Vol. x, No. x, xxxx 1

Artificial geothermal energy potential of

steam-flooded heavy oil reservoirs

Limpasurat, Akkharachai
Texas A&M University, Dept. of Petroleum Engineering
3116 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA
E-mail: akkharachai.l@pe.tamu.edu

Falcone, Gioia
Texas A&M University, Dept. of Petroleum Engineering
3116 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA
E-mail: gioia.falcone@pe.tamu.edu

Teodoriu, Catalin
Clausthal University of Technology, Institute of Petroleum Engineering
Building 2110, Agricolastraße 10, 38678 Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany
E-mail: catalin.teodoriu@tu-clausthal.de

Barrufet, Maria A.
Texas A&M University, Dept. of Petroleum Engineering
3116 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA
E-mail: maria.barrufet@pe.tamu.edu

Bello, Oladele O.
Texas A&M University, Dept. of Petroleum Engineering
3116 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA
E-mail: oladele.bello@pe.tamu.edu

Abstract: A concept of harnessing geothermal potential of heavy

oil reservoirs could recover at least 70 % of the total energy input
using hot water injection. Rather than abandon the heavy oil field
once it becomes uneconomic, geothermal energy that has been
trapped in the reservoir rock could be recovered. This study
shows the results of a sensitivity analysis carried out to quantify
artificial geothermal energy that can be recovered by hot water
injection after the steam flooding process. We can
advantageously extend the life of heavy oil fields by means of a
heat-recovery phase after the oil-recovery phase.

Keywords: geothermal, heavy oil, hot water flooding, steam

flooding, energy efficiency.

Copyright © 200x Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Limpasurat, A., Falcone, G., Teodoriu, C., Barrufet, M.A., Bello, O.O.

1 Introduction
Around 70% of total world oil resources are from heavy oil, extra heavy oil,
oil sand, and bitumen reservoirs. Increasing global energy demand has made
heavy oil reservoirs attractive to the petroleum industry even though their
development needs more investment than conventional oil fields need. Most
extra investments in heavy oil projects involve enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
techniques because their high viscosities prevent heavy oils from flowing.
Traditionally, EOR techniques involve heating the reservoir fluid to
reduce its viscosity. Methods for thermal recovery include steam-assisted gravity
drainage (SAGD), in-situ combustion and cyclic steam stimulation (CSS). The
most effective methods are steam flooding and hot water flooding; recovery
factors are additionally increased 20 to 30% by these two techniques. Moreover,
extra revenue can commonly be achieved by selling power generated as a by-
product of the EOR systems, especially for large EOR projects.
Some recent research has investigated uses of energy from hot fluids
produced from heavy oil reservoirs subject to thermal processes. Teodoriu et al.
(2007) proposed a novel concept for thermal recovery that improves heavy oil
production and simultaneously generates electricity. They focused on the heavy
oil fields where hot water flooding has been applied. Once the water cut reaches
uneconomic values, production wells are normally shut in or converted into
injectors. The Teodoriu et al. concept is to use the heat from hot water production
after water breakthrough to generate electricity for power plants. By injecting hot
water in the reservoir (using conventional heaters and low-temperature solar
heaters) and letting the water receive further heath from the reservoir itself
(following thermal recovery operations), it could be possible to recover
significant amounts of thermal energy. Synthetic reservoir models from their
study showed that the reservoirs can constantly supply the heat to surface.
However, their proposed concept needs to be verified by a complete assessment
of the project.
Other studies have focused on the possibility of using the energy left in
reservoirs that have been or will be abandoned. Zhang et al. (2008) indicated that
the energy left in the reservoir can be recovered by oxidizing residual oil with
injected air so that the reservoirs are transferred into exceptional enhanced
geothermal systems (EEGS) with high temperature. The hot produced fluid from
the EEGS can be used to generate power by using geothermal power generation
technology. Valbuena et al. (2009) showed that hot produced fluid may be used
for secondary heat recovery schemes, since it carries around 20% of the energy
generated from the steam injection process.
This study followed up the work initiated by Teodoriu et al. (2007). We
conducted sensitivity analyses to identify parameters that could affect the
potential for harvesting of geothermal energy. A literature review of properties
from well-known heavy oil fields assisted us in quantifying ranges of geothermal
energy from a synthetic analogue field. We used a commercial reservoir
simulator to assist in the sensitivity analysis of the following parameters:
 Artificial geothermal energy potential of steam-flooded heavy oil reservoirs

reservoir geometry, reservoir rock properties, oil viscosity, reservoir initial

conditions and steam operating conditions. In this study, the geothermal energy
potential that can be recovered is measured by the term “energy efficiency,”
defined as a ratio of the geothermal energy that can be harvested to the energy
injected during a given stage of operation.
The simulation results show that we can exploit at least 70% of the total
energy input during the hot water injection period. Moreover, some reservoir
parameters such as the reservoir geometry and the formation permeability have a
significant impact on the geothermal energy harvested. The results from this
study affirm that we can extend the life of heavy oil reservoirs by implementing
an energy-recovery phase after the oil-recovery phase, as originally proposed by
Teodoriu at al.(2007).

2 Heavy Oil Reservoirs

Typically, heavy oil reservoirs occur from crude-oil source rocks with
API gravity between 30°API and 40°API. The oil becomes heavier only after
substantial degradation during migration and after entrapment. The degradation
can occur through a variety of biological, chemical, and physical processes.
Heavy oil is geologically produced from young formations from the Pleistocene,
Pliocene, and Miocene ages. These formations tend to be shallow and have less
effective seals, exposing them to conditions that are conducive to forming heavy
oils.
Heavy oil is an asphaltic, dense (low API gravity), and viscous oil that is
chemically characterised by its content of asphaltenes (very large molecules
incorporating most of the sulfur and perhaps 90 % of the metals in the oil).
Although variously defined, the upper limit for heavy oil has been set at 22 °API
gravity and a viscosity of 100 cp (Meyer and Attanasi, 2003). Although density
and viscosity are not directly linked, denser liquid hydrocarbons do tend to be
more viscous. Table 1 summarises the differences between light oil, heavy oil,
extra heavy oil and tar sand/bitumen (Miller, 2008).
From literature, we have found some similarities in the parameters of
heavy oil reservoirs. For instance, heavy oil reservoirs are mostly located at
shallow depth ranges around 1 000 ft. The porosity and the permeability are
usually around 30% and more than 1 000 md, respectively
Large heavy oil reservoirs have been discovered in many regions. For
example, in Canada, the recoverable heavy oil resources located in Alberta and
Saskatchewan are estimated to be at least 50 to 60 billion bbl. Heavy oil qualities
in the area range from 500 to 20 000 cp in viscosity and densities are about
11°API to 18°API. The Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields, two of the largest
conventional oil fields in Alaska, consist of heavy oil strata on top of the main
producing zones. The estimated original oil in place (OOIP) is around 10 to 20
billion bbl, with the viscosities of the heavy oil ranging from 30 to 3 000 cp.
Differences in geological systems in forming heavy oil reservoirs lead to
variations in the reservoir properties in each location.
 Limpasurat, A., Falcone, G., Teodoriu, C., Barrufet, M.A., Bello, O.O.

Since we are attempting to estimate the possible range of the geothermal

potential that can be represented in real heavy oil fields, we used the reservoir
properties from three classical heavy oil fields from three different regions to
develop an analogue field in our study. These fields are the Kern River, Duri, and
Faja Del Orinoco.

Kern River
Kern River field, located near Bakersfield, California, was discovered in
1899. The field is about 6 miles long and 4 miles wide, and has been producing
heavy oil from the Miocene to the Pleistocene Age Kern River formation. The
permeability ranges from 1 to 10 darcy (Messner, 1990). The estimated OOIP is
around 4 billion bbl. The oil viscosity of 500 to 10 000 cp, combined with low
initial reservoir temperature and pressure, result in low primary recovery. Steam
flooding was applied to enhance the recovery of this field. Lab experimental data
show that viscosity of 12 000 cp at reservoir temperature of 32°C is reduced to
20 cp at the steam flood temperature of 127 °C (Curtis et al., 2002). By 1973,
75% of Kern River production was from the steam flooding project. Typical
steam injection is in a 5-spot pattern covering 10 117 m2 in each pattern.

Duri
Duri field, a large shallow heavy oil field in Indonesia, is the biggest
steam flood operation in the world in term of oil production and volume of steam
injected (Curtis et al., 2002). Primary production, mostly from solution-gas and
compaction drives, peaked at 65 000 barrel of oil per day (BOPD) in the mid-
1960s, which was only 7% recovery of the OOIP. Currently, the production is
nearly 230 000 BOPD from the injection of 950 000 bbl of cold water equivalent
per day (BCWE/D) of steam with the ultimate recovery factors expected to
approach 70% in some areas. Steam flooding has been applied throughout the
field, in which inverted 9-spot patterns over 62 726 m2 are common. The
production occurs mainly as a result of pressure generated by the steam before
breakthrough into the production wells.

Faja Del Orinoco

Faja Del Orinoco field, located in Venezuela, is one of the largest
accumulations of heavy and ultraheavy oil (Curtis et al., 2002). The estimated
OOIP is around 1.36 trillion bbl. Production started in 1998. The field was
successfully implemented with multilateral wells draining the oil from the
reservoir with not only the low formation pressure but also with the soft, highly
stratified sand formation.
Reservoir properties of these three fields are compared in Table 2 (Curtis
et al., 2002; Hinkle, 2006; Messner, 1990).

3 Reservoir Model Description

The purpose of this project is to identify ranges of the geothermal energy
potential that can be harvested, or in other words, to quantify the heat-recovery
 Artificial geothermal energy potential of steam-flooded heavy oil reservoirs

phase after the oil-recovery phase. We developed a base case reservoir model
representing the analogue field from three classical heavy oil fields and assigned
parameters by averaging the available data from Table 2. The lithology of the
base case model is assumed to be sandstone. The porosity and permeability are
assumed to be homogenous, assigned to 5x5x5 Cartesian grids in the base case
model. Vertical permeability is assumed to be 0.1 the horizontal permeability.
The thermal properties of the reservoir rock are based on literature review of the
typical values in sandstone (Prats, 1982), while the thermal properties of the
adjacent strata are based on the properties in Kern River field (Messner, 1990).
Fluid properties are from a pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) report of
Hamaca oil field in Venezuela (Mago et al., 2005). Four pseudocomponents were
simulated to represent the fluid properties of this field. The oil gravity is
approximately 9°API to 14°API with viscosity of 4 484 cp at the reservoir
temperature of 38°C. A summary of the reservoir properties used for the base
case model is shown in Table 3.
We assume that a 5-spot pattern of the steam flooding is applied in our
synthetic model. We simulated only one-fourth of this pattern. Dry steam with
the temperature of 204°C heats up the oil in the reservoir. After a certain period,
the oil viscosity is dramatically reduced, resulting in oil flowing to the producing
well. After that, the oil flow rate gradually drops and the water cut increases
conversely. We immediately switch to injecting hot water at the temperature of
66°C right after reaching peak oil flow. Additionally, as proposed by Teodoriu et
al., we investigated the simulation case where solar heaters could supply the hot
water injection. The solar heaters could be used in the location where solar power
can be received during day time all year. During the night and on cloudy days,
the water is injected at a lower temperature and then heated by the energy stored
in the reservoir. We conducted a case with alternating hot water injection of 60°C
and 100°C in the simulation run to represent the availability of solar energy only
during the day.
We also performed a sensitivity study of the effect of different
parameters on the geothermal energy recovery. The range of parameters used in
this study reflected that encountered in our three classical heavy oil fields. The
sensitivity parameters consist of the following:

• Reservoir geometry: reservoir area, formation thickness.

• Reservoir rock properties: porosity, permeability, lithology.

• Reservoir initial conditions: initial reservoir pressure and temperature.

• Oil viscosity.

• Steam injection conditions: steam injection rate, injecting temperature and

pressure, steam quality.
 Limpasurat, A., Falcone, G., Teodoriu, C., Barrufet, M.A., Bello, O.O.

4 Simulation Results
The fluid and energy production profiles for the base case simulation are shown
in Figure 1. This graph illustrates the effect of steam injection once heat entering
the reservoir is still not influencing viscosity reduction at the early time period,
resulting in a very low oil flow rate. After that, the behavior of water flooding,
where the displacement of volumetric input sweeps mobile oil, can be observed
in the steam injection process. The reservoir produces more mobile oil and starts
to produce steam/condensed water as steam has higher mobility ratios than heavy
oil at this stage. Because of the gravity segregation effect regarding differences in
the densities, injected steam starts to flow upward while heated oil flows
downward to the bottom of the reservoir. Heavier oil components left at the
bottom of the reservoir receive less heat than the lighter oil components, resulting
in the slow displacement front at the bottom and fast at the top of the reservoir,
creating bypassing channels for hot water to flow to the wellbore.
Reservoir saturation and temperature distributions illustrate this behavior
in steam flooding (Figure 2). Once the reservoir is heated up to the level that
causes a dramatic drop in the viscosity of the heavy oil, we observe high oil
recovery and water production rates. After this stage, the oil production rate is
reduced and the water production rate increases conversely if we continue to
inject steam. For this study, we consider the time of reaching the peak oil
production rate as the economic point. Then we switch the injection fluid to the
hot water, which is at 1 300 days in the base case simulation time. Figure 3
shows that we can recover some amount of residual oil during the hot water
injection phase. The constant amount of heat is continuously carried by the hot
produced fluid.
Table 4 summarises the recovery factor and energy efficiency of the base
case result during the steam injection and hot water injection periods. During 4
000 days of injecting hot water, the base case simulation indicates that energy
efficiency is 87% with a 59% recovery factor, which means that most of the
energy input could be recovered. Meanwhile, from the cumulative energy plot
shown in Figure 3, approximately 70% of the cumulative energy input
accounting for steam and hot water energy can be recovered. However, the actual
contributions of energy production during hot water injection are from the
original energy input from hot water itself, plus the excess energy during steam
injection that has been trapped in the reservoir rock.
Without hot water injection, the trapped energy in the reservoir will
gradually disperse to the adjacent strata, which means that we will be missing the
revenues generated from using the geothermal energy from the heavy oil fields.
Figure 4 shows the energy profile for the simulation case using alternating hot
and cold injecting water. It confirms that heat from the reservoir could
compensate for the loss of energy during the night time, resulting in constant
energy production from the reservoirs. This indicates a possibility to employ
solar power to generate the heat input for the hot water in locations receiving
energy from the sun all year.
 Artificial geothermal energy potential of steam-flooded heavy oil reservoirs

Figures 5 and 6 show ranges of energy efficiencies and recovery factors

during the hot water injection stage based on the sensitivity parameters. From our
study, the energy efficiency that can be recovered during the hot water injection
period ranges from 70% to 95%. The geometric parameters, including reservoir
area and reservoir thickness, mostly affect energy efficiencies during the hot
water injection stage. Heavy oil reservoirs with small injection areas and thick
formations result in more energy efficiency. In these reservoirs, gravity
segregation creates a bypassing flow path at the top of the reservoir, and little
energy is lost within the small distance from the injector to the producer; thus,
most of the energy introduced during the hot water injection period is recovered
almost directly.
This also corresponds to recovery factors where the low recoveries
observed in the thick-formation case allowed an opportunity to implement infill
drilling at the bottom of the reservoir to gain additional oil recovery (see Figure
3). Porosity and lithology of the formations have minor impact on energy
efficiencies during the hot water injection stage. However, the formations with
high permeability result in more energy efficiency but lower recovery factors
because of the by-passing flow path created at the top of the reservoirs.
The initial reservoir temperature also affects energy efficiencies. Higher
initial temperature implies that the reservoir fluid has more in-situ energy and
thus higher mobility; as a consequence, the peak oil production during the steam
injection stage can be reached earlier in this case, allowing less contacting time
for steam to be trapped by the formation rock. Viscosity parameters slightly
influence energy efficiencies and recovery factors in this study. The steam
injection rate does influence energy efficiencies, while other steam injection
parameters have minor impact on energy efficiencies (Figure 5). A higher steam
injection rate implies higher energy volumetric input to the reservoirs, resulting
in more trapped energy in the formation rock that could be recovered during the
hot water injection period. The simulation results from steam injection
parameters indicate that regardless of the steam injection conditions, at least 70%
energy efficiency can be achieved by using hot water injection.

5 Conclusions
From this study, we have identified the characteristics of geothermal
energy potential that could be recovered from heavy oil fields with the assistance
of hot water injection. Moreover, we observed key parameters that affect the
energy recovered and the recovery factor during hot water injection.
We can draw the following conclusions:

• Hot water functions as a fluid medium that can carry trapped geothermal
energy in the formation rocks to the producing wells. Around 70% of total
energy input to the reservoir can be recovered during the hot water injection
 Limpasurat, A., Falcone, G., Teodoriu, C., Barrufet, M.A., Bello, O.O.

period. In addition, the energy from the injected hot water assists in
extracting more residual oil in the reservoirs.
• At least 70% of the energy input from the hot water injection period can be
recovered, depending on the reservoir characteristics and the steam
conditions.
• Injection of alternated water temperature can provide constant geothermal
energy potential. This indicates the possibility of establishing solar heaters to
generate hot water for injection in locations with continuous supply of solar
energy.
• Energy efficiency is sensitive to reservoir geometry; thicker oil reservoirs
result in more energy efficiency but poorer oil recovery factors during the hot
water injection stage. Gravity segregation creates an opportunity for infill
drilling at the bottom of these reservoirs.
• Small reservoir areas, with their short distances between the production well
and the injection well, results in more energy efficiency.
• Higher formation permeability results in more energy efficiency but lower oil
recovery factor.
• Higher reservoir temperature at the initial condition results in less energy
efficiency.
• Lower steam injection rates result in lower energy efficiency during the hot
water injection period.

6 Recommendations
From this study, we can identify the possible ranges of geothermal
energy potential that could be recovered from the heavy oil field by hot water
injection. Moreover, key parameters that affect the energy recovered and the
recovery factor during hot water injecting can be observed.
However, to consider the feasibility of using the geothermal energy
potential at surface, understanding the energy loss along the wells is necessary.
Valbuena et al (2009), indicated that, over a 15-year life, the heat loss in the
injection wells (for SAGD thermal process) would cost more than a quarter
million barrels by not insulating the injectors. Moreover, they pointed out that the
energy losses in the injection wells are greater than those in the production wells.
We recommend integrating the wellbore model with the reservoir model,
which could result in quantification of the geothermal energy potential at the
surface that will benefit the feasibility study. Additionally, to establish the
feasibility of harnessing the geothermal potential as proposed by Teodoriu et al.
(2007), we recommend detailed studies of the solar heaters, heat exchangers and
energy efficiencies for the “energy cycle,” starting from injecting the energy at
the surface, tracing the energy that passes through the injector to extract trapped
 Artificial geothermal energy potential of steam-flooded heavy oil reservoirs

energy in the reservoir to the producer and the energy output at surface, based on
an efficiency of the heat exchangers to extract the heat to sell. Also, a complete
economics evaluation of the project should be performed.
In this study, the sensitivity to oil viscosity was carried out by altering
the mole fractions of the heavy components. The viscosity range of the heavy oil
was narrowed to retain the correct PVT properties for the numerical simulator.
Better estimation of the impact of oil viscosity could be made by changing the
fluid composition and generating new PVT tables for every run case. This would
show the importance of fluid viscosity in recovering the geothermal energy from
heavy oil reservoirs.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the sponsors of the Crisman Petroleum Research
Institute at Texas A&M University for supporting this project.

References

Curtis, C., Decoster, E., Garcia, A.G. et al. (2002). ‘Heavy-Oil Reserviors’.
www.slb.com/media/services/resources/oilfieldreview/
ors02/aut02/p30_51.pdf. Downloaded 7 July 2009.
Hinkle, A., (2006). ‘Heavy Oils: A Worldwide Opportunity’.
www.slb.com/media/services/resources/articles/heavyoil/200801_ao_hea
vy_oil_recovery.pdf. Downloaded 10 September 2009.
Mago, A.L., Barrufet, M.A., and Nogueira, M.C. (2005) ‘Assessing the impact of
oil viscosity mixing rules in cyclic steam stimulation of extra-heavy oils’.
Paper presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, October 9-12. Dallas, Texas. 95643-MS
Meyer, R.F. and Attanasi, E.D. (2003). Heavy Oil and Natural Bitumen—
Strategic Petroleum Resources. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 70-03
online version 1.0, August 2003. pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs070-03/fs070-
03.html#sidebar, Downloaded 28 September 2009.
Messner, G.L.(1990). ‘A comparison of mass rate and steam quality reductions to
optimise steamflood performance’. Paper presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. 23-26 September. New Orleans,
Louisiana. 20761-MS.
Miller, G. (2008) ‘A heavy prospect’, World Pipelines, March.
Prats, M. (1982). Thermal Recovery, Richardson:SPE.
Safinya, K. (2008) ‘Heavy Oil Recovery—The Road Ahead’.
HeavyOilinfo.com. www.heavyoilinfo.com/feature_items/kambiz-
article.pdf/view. Download 27 August 2009.
Teodoriu, C., Falcone, G., Espinel, A. (2007) 'Letting Off steam and getting into
hot water – harnessing the geothermal energy potential of heavy oil
 Limpasurat, A., Falcone, G., Teodoriu, C., Barrufet, M.A., Bello, O.O.

reservoirs'. Paper presented at the 20th World Energy Congress—Rome

2007. 11-15 Nov 2007. Rome, Italy
Valbuena, E., Bashbush, J.L., and Rincon, A. (2009) 'Energy balance in steam
injection projects: integrating surface-reservoir systems'. Paper presented
at the 2009 Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference , May 31 – June 3. Cartagena de Indias, Colombia. SPE
121489
Zhang, L., Yuan, J., Liang, H., and Li, K. (2008) 'Energy from abandoned oil and
gas reservoirs'. Paper presented at the 2008 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and
Gas Conference and Exhibition. , October 20-22. Perth, Australia. SPE
115055

Tables

Table 1 Oil classification based on fluid density, viscosity, and mobility (after
Miller, 2008)
Type Density, °API Viscosity, cp Behavior at reservoir conditions
Light Oil >22.7 1-100 Mobile
Heavy Oil 15-22.7 100-1,000 Mobile
Extra Heavy Oil 10-15 1,000-10,000 Slightly Mobile
Tar Sand/ Bitumen 7-12 >10,000 Immobile

Table 2 Reservoir properties and operating conditions of three classical fields

Parameter Kern River Field Duri field Faja del Orinoco
Lithology Sandstone Sandstone Unconsolidated sandstone
Depth of top reservoir,m 91-259 152 366-716
Formation thickness,m 15-30 37 110
Porosity, % 31 34 30-35
Permeability, md 1,000-10,000 1,500 1,000-17,000
Initial water saturation, % 50 53 36
Oil viscosity at initial condition, cp 500-10,000 330 >5,000
Density, °API 10-15 20 8.5-10
Initial reservoir pressure, psia 100 100 630-895
Initial reservoir temperature, °C 32 38 38-57
-1
Rock compressibility, psi 0.000735 0.000057 0.00008-0.00009
2 959,105 (Multilateral
Reservoir area, m 10,117 (5-spot) 62,726 (invert 9-spot)
horizontal drilling)
Steam temperature, °C 127 232 N/A
 Artificial geothermal energy potential of steam-flooded heavy oil reservoirs

Table 3 Reservoir properties used for the base case model (sandstone reservoir)
Parameter Value
Depth of top reservoir, m 610
Reservoir thickness, m 30
2
Reservoir area, m 15,661
Porosity, % 30
Permeability, md 1,500
Thermal conductivity of reservoir rock, W/(m·K) 996
Thermal conductivity of adjacent rock, W/(m·K) 1,146
Volumetric heat capacity of reservoir rock, J/(m³·K) 2.21E+06
Volumetric heat capacity of adjacent rock, J/(m³·K) 2.61E+06
Initial reservoir pressure, psia 350
Initial reservoir temperature, °C 38

Table 4 Recovery factor and energy efficiency for the base case simulation
during steam injection and hot water injection phase
Stage Duration, days Recovery Factor, % Energy Efficiency, %
Steam injection 1,300 3 3
Hot water injection 4,000 59 87
Total 5,300 62 90
 Limpasurat, A., Falcone, G., Teodoriu, C., Barrufet, M.A., Bello, O.O.

Figures

Figure 1 Oil, water, and total energy production profile for the base case
simulation

So Temperature

1 year

Displacement
front
4 years

12 years

Oil bank left in

the reservoir
Figure 2 Saturation distribution and temperature distribution for the base case
simulation during the steam injection stage
 Artificial geothermal energy potential of steam-flooded heavy oil reservoirs

3.5E+08
1300 days

Steam Injection Hot Water Injection

3.0E+08

30 % of total
2.5E+08 Projection of energy input
energy input
from continous
Cumulative energy, kW-hour

steam injection
2.0E+08
Energy injected

Energy produced
1.5E+08 70 % of total
Energy accumulation Energy Produced
Energy Injected
in formation energy input
Energy loss
recovered
1.0E+08

Energy Loss
5.0E+07

Energy Accumulation in Formation

0.0E+00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Time, days

Figure 3 Cumulative injected, produced, accumulated, and lost energy for the
base case simulation during the steam and the hot water injection

F
igure 4 Energy profiles for constant and alternate injected water temperature
 Limpasurat, A., Falcone, G., Teodoriu, C., Barrufet, M.A., Bello, O.O.

Figure 5 Result of sensitivity parameters to the energy efficiencies during the hot
water injection period (Steam quality: Wet = 60% steam content, Dry = 100%
steam content)

Figure 6 Result of sensitivity parameters to the recovery factors during the hot
water injection period (Steam quality: Wet = 60% steam content, Dry = 100%
steam content)

View publication stats