Evaluation of Thermal Injection in Enhanced Oil Recovery

EVALUATION OF THERMAL INJECTION IN ENHANCED OIL
RECOVERY
A project report submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
BY
DASARI GANESH NAIDU, B. Tech. (Mechanical)

(19021D2301)
Under the Guidance and Supervision of

Shri. S.K.S. CHARYULU
Academic advisor and retired Executive Director of ONGC
DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING AND

PETROCHEMICAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KAKINADA (A)
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
KAKINADA KAKINADA-533003
2023
DECLARATION
I, D GANESH NAIDU, hereby declare that my project report entitled “Evaluation of

Thermal Injection in Enhanced Oil Recovery” is original and has not previously formed the
basis for the award of any degree to similar work.
Place: KAKINADA D. GANESH NAIDU
Date: (19021D2301)
ii
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KAKINADA
(A) JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY KAKINADA
DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING AND

PETROCHEMICAL ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project work entitled “EVALUATION OF THERMAL

INJECTION IN ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY” submitted by Mr. D. GANESH
NAIDU in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Master of Technology in
Petroleum Engineering, is a Bonafide work carried out by him.
Shri. S.K.S. CHARYULU Dr. K. Krishna Bhaskar

Academic advisor and Head Dept. of PE & PCE
Retired Executive Director of ONGC
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I acknowledge my sincere thanks to Shri. S.K.S CHARYULU, Academic Advisor and

Retired Executive Director of ONGC, Department of Petroleum Engineering and
Petrochemical Engineering, JNTUK, for his guidance, supervision and valuable suggestions
during the project. His dedication and keen interest, above all his over whelming attitude to
help his students had been solely and mainly responsible for completing my work.
My deep gratitude to Dr. K. Krishna Bhaskar, Head of the Department, Department of

PE & PCE, UCEK (A), JNTU Kakinada, for extending his immense support and attention
throughout my project.
I am highly thankful to Dr. M.H.M. Krishna Prasad, Principal, University college of

Engineering, JNTUK for providing facilities to carry-out the project successfully.
My sincere thanks are due to all Teaching and Non-Teaching members of Department of
Petroleum Engineering and Petrochemical Engineering and friends who have rendered
valuable help in preparing this project properly.
Finally, I am very much grateful to my parents for their enduring love, affection, support
and encouragement throughout my education.
D. GANESH
NAIDU
19021D2301
iv
ABSTRACT
The methods of enhancing recovery of heavy crude oil explore the importance of
enhanced oil recovery and how it has grown in recent years due to the increased needs to
locate unconventional resources such as heavy oil, shale, and bitumen. Unfortunately,
petroleum engineers and managers are not always well-versed in the enhancement methods
available when needed or the most economically viable solution to maximize their reservoir’s
productivity. Various recovery methods have been explored to extract heavy oil from deep
reservoirs. This summarizes the details of thermal methods. A study has been done on
thermal injection – as an enhanced oil recovery – in heavy oil reservoir. Two types of thermal
injection were discussed. These methods are cyclic steam stimulation and steam flooding. The
simulation was done using CMG STARS and literature data. Moreover, steam flooding
technique was used in simulating the reservoir. It was confirmed that thermal injection is
significant in heavy oil reservoir. It was shown that the viscosity is the main variable that
affects the production rate and the recovery factor of the field. By decreasing the value of this
variable the production rate was significantly increased. Using thermal injection increased
the recovery factor from 3.75% to 56.5%.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGE NO
Declaration
Certificate
Acknowledgements
Abstract
List of Figures
List of Tables
1. introduction 1
1.1 Recovery Techniques 1
1.2 EOR/Tertiary Recovery Techniques 3
1.3 Thermal Injection 8
1.4 Conventional Thermal Methods of heavy 12
oil Recovery
2. Literature Review 24
2.1 Critical Review 25
2.2 Steam Properties 26
2.3 Steam injection techniques 28
3. Methodology 33
3.1 Methodology 33
3.2. Computer Modelling Group Ltd. – CMG 34
4. Case Studies 36
4.1 Case Study – 1 36
5. Result AND Discussion 54
6. Analysis 65
7. Conclusions 67
8. Recommendations 68
9. References 70
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Title Page No
1.1 Typical Reservoir Life Cycle 1
1.3 Main drive mechanism in fractured reservoirs 11
1.4.1 Illustration of cyclic Steam Stimulation(CSS) process 13
1.4.2 Oil rate in 20 years of production in a model with and
without cyclic steam 14
1.4.3 Steam injection scheme taking account gravity 15
1.4.4 Steam Flooding 16
1.4.5 Illustrative mechanism of steam flooding process 18
1.4.6 In-Situ Combustion 20
1.4.7 Effect of fracture intensity on oil recovery of steam injection 21
1.4.8 THAI Recovery Process 22
1.4.9 Illustration of the steam chamber cross-section in SAGD 23
2.1 Viscosity vs Temperature 25
2.2 Saturation steam temperature vs pressure 27
2.3 Temperature vs Radial distance 28
2.4.1 Cyclic steam stimulation steps 29
2.4.2 Steam flooding using vertical wells 30
2.4.3 Steam flooding using horizontal wells 31
3.1 Flowchart of Reservoir Simulation 33
3.2 Flowchart for CMG STARS Simulator 35
4.1 Reservoir Model 39
4.2 Reservoir Composition 40
4.3 Initial Conditions 40
4.4 Well Data 41
4.5 Well Constraints 42
4.6 Well Simulation Dates 42
4.8 Fluid Composition Data 47
4.10 Well Constraints for Case Study 2 48
4.11 Well Simulation Dates 49
4.13 Reservoir Fluid Composition 52
4.15 Relative Permeability Curves 53
4.16 Defining Well Constraints 54
4.17 Well Simulation Dates for Case Study 3 54
5.1 Oil Production vs Time (bbl/day) 55
5.2 Field Oil Production vs Time 56
vii
5.3 Residual Oil Saturation after Simulation 56
5.4 Residual Gas Saturation 57
5.5 Well Oil Production vs Time 58
5.6 Total Oil Production in Field Production vs Time 58
5.7 Residual Oil Saturation 59
5.9 Well Production Rate vs Time 60
5.10 Field Production Rate vs Time 61
5.11 Residual Oil Saturation 62
5.13 Cumulative field Oil Production vs Time 63
5.14 Cumulative field Oil Production vs Time for water flooding 64
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Title Page No
1.1 Classification of Tertiary Recovery Methods 7
1.2 EOR screening criteria for conventional reservoirs 10
4.1 Reservoir Properties 36
4.2 Water Saturation Tables 36
4.3 Gas – Oil Saturation Table 37 – 39
4.4 Reservoir Data for Case Study 2 44
4.5 Water – Oil saturation for Case Study 2 44
4.6 Gas - Oil Saturation data for Case Study 2 45 – 46
4.7 Reservoir Data for Case Study 3 49
4.8 Water Saturation Data for Case Study 3 50
4.9 Liquid-oil Saturation data for Case Study 3 50 – 51
5.1 Comparison of Cumulative Field Oil Production Data for 64
Case Study 3
ix
NOMENCLATURE
A Area of Reservoir
H Depth Of Reservoir
Krw Relative Permeability of Water
Krow Relative Permeability of Oil
M Molecular Weight
N Number of Components in the Mixture
OOIP Original Oil in Place
P Pressure
Pc Critical Pressure
Soi Initial Oil Saturation
Sw Water Saturation
R Universal Gas Constant
T Temperature
Tc Critical Temperature.
Tr Reduced Temperature
V Molar Volume
Vcorr Corrected Molar Volume
X Mole Fraction
Z Compressibility Factor
x
1. INTRODUCTION
Two or three stages of oil production may be used to extract oil from a reservoir during
the course of its useful life. Figure 1.1 shows typical reservoir life cycle.
Figure 1.1: Typical Reservoir Life Cycle
1.1 RECOVERY TECHNIQUES:

When conventional energy sources like gas drives, water drives, or gravity waste are
used, hydrocarbons are released from their storage location and transported through the
wellbore to the surface. The supply pressure is initially much greater than the base opening
strain inside the wellbore. Hydrocarbons are pushed upwards and toward the well by the
strong normal differential strain. Regardless, differential strain decreases when supply
pressure falls because of creation. In order to increase hydrocarbon production, it is necessary
to implement a false lift framework, such as a bar siphon, an electrical sub siphon, or a gas-
lift installation, in order to reduce the strain at the base opening or to increase the differential
strain. Recovery via the use of artificial lift in creation is crucial. When the supply pressure is
too low, making the creation rates imprudent, or when the gas or water concentrations in the
creation stream become too high, the important recuperation stage reaches its termination.
Only a small fraction of the underlying hydrocarbon setup is formed during critical recovery,
typically approximately 10% for oil supplies. Vital restoration is the same as vital generation.
1.1.1. Primary Recovery Techniques

These are often implemented at the foundational stage of production, when the pressure
differential between the supply and the base of the providing great may be exploited. The oil
is propelled to the well by a "supply normal drive" and then to the surface. When the supply
drive decreases as a result of oil and gas extraction, siphons are used to maintain production,
and the necessary recovery is typically complete when the repository pressure is too low, the
production rate is not more conservative, and the gas-to-oil or water-to-oil ratio is too high.
1
Depending on the oil and land quality and supply pressure, the amount of oil recovered from
the well at the critical stage may range from around 5% to 25% of OOIP (Originally Oil in
Place).
When the natural energy already available in a supply is harnessed as the principal source of
energy for oil extraction from producing wells, essential recovery occurs. Conventional
energy sources include things like gas-cap drives, conventional water drives, liquid and rock
extensions, and gravity waste. Once oil is in the wellbore, how it is brought to the top is not a
factor in the order plot.
1.1.2. Secondary Recovery Techniques

These are used as a last resort after more conventional means of recuperation have failed.
Substituting "Artificial drive" for the natural reservoir drive, secondary recovery involves
injecting fluids (usually water, although other liquids or gases may also be utilized) into the
reservoir through injection wells in order to increase/maintain the reservoir pressure. Tests
with carbon dioxide have shown only little results. The viability of secondary recovery
strategies is evaluated from a monetary perspective. Depending on the oil and the features of
the reservoir, the recovery factor for such operations might be anywhere from 6% to 30% of
OOIP. The process that occurs after hydrocarbons are extracted from the ground and before
they are refined into finished products; it entails the introduction of an outside fluid (such as
water or gas) into the reservoir via injection wells drilled into rock that is in fluid
communication with production wells. Hydrocarbons are displaced toward the wellbore and
reservoir pressure is maintained by secondary recovery. Gas injection and water-flooding are
the most typical methods of secondary recovery. Oil is typically swept from the reservoir by
injecting gas into the gas cap and water into the production zone. Pressure maintenance is a
sort of improved recovery that may be used during the initial recovery phase. When large
quantities of the injected fluid (water or gas) are generated from the production wells and
further production is uneconomical, the secondary recovery stage is complete. The oil in an
oil reservoir may be recovered in two stages: the first is primary recovery, and the second is
secondary recovery. [Lake, Larry W. (1989)].
Supplementing natural energy via the injection of water or gas to displace oil toward
producing wells is known as secondary recovery. Gas is injected either into a gas cap to
maintain pressure and to expand the gas cap, or into oil column wells to displace oil
2
Immiscibly, taking into account the relative permeability of the two media and the volumetric
sweep out. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) refers to gas procedures that rely on alternate
mechanisms, such as oil swelling, oil viscosity decrease, or favorable phase behavior.
Although it is sometimes employed as a backup recovery method, gas displacement is not as
effective as water flooding. Subsequent recovery is often associated with water flooding.
1.1.3. Tertiary Recovery Operations

These techniques, also known as Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) or Improved Oil
Recovery (IOR), are used in oilfields that are towards the end of their useful life. They may
increase oil production by anywhere from 5 to 15% OOIP in light to medium oil reservoirs
and by less in heavy oil reservoirs. These procedures are used to boost oil flow in a reservoir
by modifying the oil's kinematics or the way it interacts with the rock. Enhancement of Oil
Recovery (EOR) via CO2 Injection is one such method.
After primary and secondary recoveries, the normal recovery factor is between 30 and 50%,
averaging 45 to 55% in the North Sea fields, with some fields reaching 66% recovery without
enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Recent assessments, however, have shown that following
normal primary and secondary recoveries, the globe would still have unproduced reserves of
around 2,000 billion bbls of conventional oil and 5,000 billion bbls of heavy oil. Therefore,
EOR may have a significant impact on oil output; increasing the recovery factor by only 1%
worldwide would result in an additional 70 billion barrels of conventional oil reserves. [Latil,
M (1980)].
1.2. EOR/TERTIARY RECOVERY TECHNIQUES

Gas injection, thermal recovery, and chemical reactions are the primary EOR processes.
Table 1.1 summarizes the reservoir and crude oil characteristics that may be used as a basis
for determining which EOR methods to use.
Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) methods encompass Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) methods
as well as new drilling and well technologies, intelligent reservoir management and control,
advanced reservoir monitoring techniques and the application of different enhancements of
primary and secondary recovery processes. However, the present paper presents a
comprehensive review of EOR status and opportunities to increase oil recoveries and final
recovery factors in reservoirs ranging from extra heavy oil to gas condensate. Multiple fluids
may be injected during EOR procedures. In most cases, a modest amount of a costly chemical
(primary slug) is injected to mobilize the oil. Larger quantities of a cheap chemical are used
3
to displace this main slug (secondary slug). The secondary slug is there to help you get rid of
the main slug as quickly and with as little damage to the primary slug as possible. It is well
known that EOR projects have been strongly influenced by economics and crude oil prices.
The initiation of EOR projects depends on the preparedness and willingness of investors to
manage EOR risk and economic exposure and the availability of more attractive investment
options to further save costs, a secondary slug is often followed by the injection of even
cheaper fluids. Although the last chemical slug may be water or dry gas injected merely to
displace volumetrically the fluids injected earlier in the process, all injected fluids are
regarded to be part of the EOR process in such a scenario.
Enhanced oil recovery is the recovery technique by the injection of materials not normally
present in the petroleum reservoirs. This definition covers all modes of oil recovery (drive,
push-pull, and well treatments) and most oil recovery agents Tertiary, or enhanced oil
recovery (EOR), techniques that offer prospects for ultimately producing 30 to 60 percent, or
more, of the reservoir's original oil in place. Three major categories of EOR have been found
to be commercially successful to varying degrees.
Thermal recovery, which involves the introduction of heat such as the injection of steam to
lower the viscosity, or thin, the heavy viscous oil, and improve its ability to flow through the
reservoir. Thermal techniques account for over 40 percent of U.S EOR production, primarily in
California. Warm recovery increases the supply's intensity by means of steam infusion, in-situ
burning, or boiling water, hence reducing the oil thickness. The intensity loss associated with
wells limits the supply depth for steam applications. There are thick oil reserves that are
unfeasible to economically produce, but can be accessed using Steam Injection at shallow
depths (1,500 m). It is useful for in-situ combustion to be used to materials that include light
oils (> 30 °API). As much as 1,252,000 bpd was created in 2008 with heated EOR methods
(1,016,000 bpd gauge in 2010). When working with heavy oil and tar sands resources, heated
methods perform well.
Gas Injection which uses gases such as natural gas, nitrogen, or carbon dioxide (CO2) that
expand in a reservoir to push additional oil to a production wellbore, or other gases that
dissolve in the oil to lower its viscosity and improves its flow rate. Gas injection accounts for
nearly 60 percent of EOR production in the United States. For these methods to work, gas
(such as hydrogen, nitrogen, vent gas, or carbon dioxide) must be injected into the oil-bearing
layer, where it will mix with the oil, reducing the layer's thickness and allowing more oil to be
4
extracted from the repository under supply circumstances and high strain. If the supply
pressure is greater than the miscibility pressure (MMP), which is dependent on temperature
and raw petroleum characteristics, then good oil recovery is guaranteed. Roughly 566,000
barrels per day were added in 2008 using gas infusion techniques for EOR production.
Chemical Injection which can involve the use of long-chained molecules called polymers to
increase the effectiveness of water floods, or the use of detergent-like surfactants to help
lower the surface tension that often prevents oil droplets from moving through a reservoir.
Chemical techniques account for about one percent of U.S. EOR production.
Each of these techniques has been hampered by its relatively high cost and, in some cases, by
the unpredictability of its effectiveness.
CO2 Injection Offers Considerable Potential Benefits is the EOR technique that is attracting the
newest market interest is CO2-EOR. First tried in 1972 in Scurry County, Texas, CO 2 injection
has been used successfully throughout the Permian Basin of West Texas and eastern New
Mexico, and is now being pursued to a limited extent in Kansas, Mississippi, Wyoming,
Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Alaska, and Pennsylvania.
Until recently, most of the CO2 used for EOR has come from naturally-occurring reservoirs.
But new technologies are being developed to produce CO2 from industrial applications such
as natural gas processing, fertilizer, ethanol, and hydrogen plants in locations where naturally
occurring reservoirs are not available. One demonstration at the Dakota Gasification
Company's plant in Beulah, North Dakota is producing CO 2 and delivering it by a 204-mile
pipeline to the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada. Encana, the field's operator, is
injecting the CO2 to extend the field's productive life, hoping to add another 25 years and as
much as 130 million barrels of oil that might otherwise have been abandoned.
5
EOR methods
Non-Thermal Thermal
Methods Methods
In-situ Electrical beam

Miscible Gas Immiscible Gas Chemical Bio Hot Water Steam Combustion Heating
Enriched Gas
Drive CO2 Immsicible Liquid Solvent Micro EOR CSS THAI
Vapourizing Combustion
Gas Drive N2 Immiscible Miscellar Enzyme EOR Vapex+Steam with Additives
Steam
CO2 Miscible Inert Gases AS/SP/ASP FLooding CAGD
N2 Flooding VAPEX SAGP
SAGD
The classification of enhanced oil recovery method
6
Table 1.1: Classification of Tertiary Recovery Methods
RESERVIOUR CONDITIONS
EOR OIL
Permeability Depth Temperature
Process SATURATION Types of Formation
(md) (m) (ºC)
(% PORE VOLUME)
High porosity and high
Steam flooding >40 >200 <1500 Not critical
permeability
sandstones`
In-Situ Sandstone with high porosity >50 <3833 >60

>50
Combustion
Sandstone preferred and
Polymer >50 >10 <3000 <90
may be used for
Flooding
carbonates
Alkali
>35 Sandstone preferred >10 <3000 <90
Surfactant
polymer
flooding
Not critical if sufficient Appropriate to allow injection
CO2 Flooding >20 Sandstone Carbonates injection rates can be pressure >than MMP which
maintained increases with temperature
T can have
Sandstones, Carbonates
Hydrocarbon >30 Not critical if uniform >1333 significant effect
with minimum factures
on MMP
Sandstone Carbonates
N2 Flue gases >40 Not critical >2000 Not critical
with few fractures
6
1.2.1 Gas Injection
For these methods to work, gas (such as hydrogen, nitrogen, vent gas, or carbon dioxide)
must be injected into the oil-bearing layer, where it will mix with the oil, reducing the layer's
thickness and allowing more oil to be extracted from the repository under supply
circumstances and high strain. If the supply pressure is greater than the miscibility pressure
(MMP), which is dependent on temperature and raw petroleum characteristics, then good oil
recovery is guaranteed. Roughly 566,000 barrels per day were added in 2008 using gas
infusion techniques for EOR production (580,000 bpd gauge in 2010). [Carroll, J. J. (2019)].
1.2.2 Thermal Recovery

Warm recovery increases the supply's intensity by means of steam infusion, in-situ
burning, or boiling water, hence reducing the oil thickness. The intensity loss associated with
wells limits the supply depth for steam applications. There are thick oil reserves that are
unfeasible to economically produce, but can be accessed using Steam Injection at shallow
depths (1,500 m). It is useful for in-situ combustion to be used to materials that include
light oils (>30°API). As much as 1,252,000 bpd was created in 2008 with heated EOR
methods (1,016,000 bpd gauge in 2010). When working with heavy oil and tar sands
resources, heated methods perform well. [Lake, Larry W. (1989)].
1.2.3 Chemical Injection

When chemicals (such as polymers or surfactants) are added to the injected water, the
interfacial tension is lowered or the viscosity of the solution water is increased, resulting in a
higher recovery efficiency. High chemical costs, depth and oil density (15-30 °API)
restrictions meant this method was never widely used, and it is now on the decline.
Production of EOR using chemical means was quite low in 2008. (35,800bpd). In order to
decrease the interfacial tension (IFT) between the oil and the displacing fluid, surfactant
flooding is used. An enhanced capillary number—a dimensionless ratio of viscous to local
capillary forces—is linked to the process as a result of the decreased interfacial tension (IFT).
Data from experiments suggest that residual oil saturation drops with increasing capillary
number [Lake, Larry W. (1989)]. In this way, increasing the use of surfactants to decrease
IFT results in more oil recovery in the long run. Surfactant needed to mitigate IFT is
produced on-site in alkaline flooding by reacting injected alkali with naphthenic acids in the
Crude oil.
7
1.3. Thermal Injection:
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is used to increase the amount of crude oil that can be
produced from the oil field. The increase is 40-60% compared to 20-40% to the primary
and secondary recovery. When advanced techniques are used in EOR, it is called
quaternary recovery. Now a day, there are several methods of EOR. These types are carbon
dioxide injection, microbial injection, polymer flooding and steam flooding. In this case
study thermal injection will be discussed.
As Manrique et al. (2010) mentioned that Thermal injection is the most frequently used
method in recovery of heavy oil. The main idea of thermal injection is to introduce heat to
the reservoir. This heat will increase the temperature in order to increase the mobility of the
oil.
Figure 1.2: Types of Injections

A petroleum reservoir consists of porous rock or unconsolidated sand media in which
varying proportions of oil, water (brine) and gas are trapped. The ease with which the oil
can be displaced from the pore space of the reservoir matrix is dependent on many factors,
not least the viscosity of the oil. During production, the reduction in pressure in the
reservoir causes lighter components to be liberated from the crude oil. One effect of this is
to make the remaining oil heavier, with resultant increase in its viscosity. Generally,
therefore, the residual oil in a depleted reservoir is heavier than the oil which was initially
in place. Considerable amounts of heavy oil and tar sands have been discovered. The
estimated reserves of these heavy hydrocarbon deposits amount to some 1,800 billion
barrels, of which 610 billion barrels are predicted to be recoverable (Meyer et a l., 1984).
The primary and secondary recovery of heavy oils is low, mainly due to their low mobility.
8
In the case of a 25° API crude, for example, primary recovery may only be 5 to 10 per cent,
increasing to 15 per cent with water flooding techniques. Water flooding is usually not a
very efficient process for recovery of heavy oil. Typically, the recovery is only about 300
to 350 bbl/ac-ft for a 65cp oil, and following breakthrough, the watercut increases rapidly
to undesirably high values (>90%). In spite of this, it may still be economic to water flood
heavy oil reservoirs. The high viscosities of heavy crude oils are the predominant factor
limiting economic recovery. Any reduction in the viscosity will give rise to an increase in
the oil mobility and hence increase in production. The most effective method of lowering
the viscosity is by the application of heat to the reservoir. Since the relation between oil
viscosity and temperature is an exponential one, the higher the oil viscosity, the greater is
the rate of viscosity reduction at any given temperature. Heat may be introduced into the
reservoir in the form of hot water, hot gases or steam. It may also be generated in situ by
burning part of the oil in the reservoir. This process is known as 'in- situ combustion. The
process of in-situ combustion involves injecting air or oxygen into the oil reservoir via an
injection well. An air permeability path through the reservoir is first established and
ignition of the crude oil is achieved either spontaneously or by other indirect means. This
may occur in the vicinity of the injection well (forward combustion) or at the producing
well (reverse combustion). With continued air injection, a combustion front propagates
through the reservoir, essentially at a steady rate. The heat wave which is generated is
sustained by the chemical reactions taking place at the combustion front. The fuel for the
combustion process in forward combustion is a residual material in the form of coke. The
coke deposits on the sand grains during distillation and cracking of the oil ahead of the
combustion front. This process is very complex, involving simultaneous heat and mass
transfer with chemical reactions in a multi- phase saturated porous medium. The economy
of dry forward combustion can be improved by heat recuperation from the swept or burned
formation at the rear of the combustion front through water injection. This may be achieved
simultaneously, or alternatively with air injection, and the process is termed ’wet
combustion’. It is most advantageous if this is carried out at the earliest opportunity, before
excessive heat loss to the cap and base rock occurs. At low water rates, the heat recovered
from the burned zone is transported through the combustion front as superheated steam,
which then serves to preheat the reservoir formation. At higher water rates, this heat
recovered may be insufficient to vaporize all of the injected water, giving rise to partially
quenched combustion. This will tend to reduce the combustion-front peak temperature,
with heat transport through the combustion zone by saturated steam. Wet combustion
9
process provides a more efficient heat distribution and less oil is consumed as fuel, thereby
increasing the velocity of the combustion front. These results in a lower air requirement per
Primary recovery is the use of natural energy that existed in a reservoir as the main source
of energy for the displacement of oil to producing wells. Most of the time, reservoir would
have gas cap drive, solution gas drive and natural water drive. Secondary recovery would
be come from augmentation of natural energy through of water or gas to displace oil
towards producing wells. The injection is based on the natural of the reservoir’s energy.
Gas injection for instance, is either into a gas cap for pressure maintenance and gas-cap
expansion. Figure 1 shows the mechanism for oil recovery in a form of chart. Primary
followed by secondary and tertiary always be in sequence in the recovery and related to
each other.
Table-1.2: EOR screening criteria for conventional reservoir
10
The most proven approach to producing heavy oil reservoirs is through thermal methods.
Thus oil recovery from this type of reservoir becomes a real challenge and classic thermal
application theories fail to define the process. Main drive mechanisms in fractured reservoirs
are shown in Figure 5
Figure-1.3: Main drive mechanisms in fractured reservoirs

The energy gap, caused by declining conventional oil production has to be filled by
expanding production of other sources. Heavy oil is one of the options for filling this gap as
the world has a significant amount of heavy oil reserves. In fact, according to the report of
IEA, the heavy and extra heavy oils constitute 40 % of the world oil reserves while some
resources claims that it is as high as 70 % like in Herriot Watt Institute of Petroleum
Engineering. In some cases, change of EOR method is required within the production period.
In shallow reservoirs where the reservoir pressure is too low to maintain a steam drive, deep
reservoirs where heat losses to overburden become excessive, in reservoirs having low in-situ
water and gas saturation or the permeability is too low to permit injection of steam, reservoirs
having thin pay zones. For such, electrical heating methods are more suitable in terms of
depth and controllable heat loss to the overburden. Low-frequency heating is provided by
using two neighboring producing oil wells as one anode and one cathode. By applying a
potential difference between the two electrodes the
11
Reservoir is heated. In inductive heating, production casing is used as an inductively heated
element to conduct heat into the production zone. While in microwave heating the
microwaves act on water molecules and the water molecule is heated while this heat is then
transferred to the formation.
1.4. CONVENTIONAL THERMAL METHODS OF HEAVY OIL RECOVERY:
The main purpose in thermal methods is to add heat to the reservoir to reduce oil
viscosity so that oil flow easily during production. Steam flood, cyclic steam injection, in situ
combustions (fire flood), SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) are the main
conventional thermal methods in use
1.4.1 Cyclic Steam Injection:

Alternating injection of steam and production of oil from the same well is called
cyclic steam injection, steam soak, or “huff & puff” was accidentally discovered in Eastern
Venezuela in 1959. In cyclic steam injection, the three-stage process involved as illustrated
in Figure 2 and 3 respectively. In the first stage, high-pressure steam is injected under high
pressure and temperature into the pay zone deliver the thermal energy to mobilize the oil and
build up reservoir pressure. The steam injection period could last for up to a month into a
producing well at very high rates (millions of kilograms). In the second stage, also called
soak stage, the well is shut in to allow distribution of injected heat to the reservoir for a soak
period of three to six days. After the soak stage, the well is put on production. The initial
production rates are typically very high for short period of time and then decline gradually
over several months. After depletion of reservoir pressure which results in very low
production rate, further production is no longer economic, the well will be put on steam
injection stage again and the whole process repeats for another injection-soak-production
cycle. Steam stimulation is also used to stimulate the producers and to clean up the formation
around the wellbore. CSS processes typically have short payback periods. At a later stage,
due to the higher steam-oil- ratio, the CSS processes are typically converted into steam
flooding processes.
12
Figure-1.4.1: Illustration of Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) process
Frequently, oil rate decreases in subsequent cycles, as can be seen in Figure 2.2 below. If the
cyclical injection is to be followed by a continuous injection – as observed in recent times – it
will be desirable to determine the number of cycles that will maximize the oil injection
recovery for the cyclical injection and steam injection.
Figure: Oil rate in 20 years of production in a numerical model with and without cyclic steam injection.
13
Figure 1.4.2: Oil rate in 20 years of production in a model with and without cyclic steam.
Figure 1.4.2 shows cumulative oil versus time in an optimization of the number of cycles in a
cyclic steam injection. In this example the maximum cumulative oil can be obtained, with 8 or 9
cycles. Regardless of the reservoir type, the cyclic injection becomes usually less efficient with
increasing number of cycles. Recovery factors are low – very often found to be in the range of
10-15% of the oil-in-place. This process can be used in horizontal and vertical wells, it has been
used in several oil fields with success, like in Alberta, Canada, where oil viscosity is about
100.000 cp, Dominant mechanisms in heat transfer are: conduction and forced convection
during injection, conduction, and a minimum convection effect during the soaking period, and
counter current of convection-conduction during the production period. For thin heavy oil
reservoirs, however, no commercial success has been reported, due to the excess heat loss which
makes the soak ineffective. This fact is evidentin several production statistics.
1.4.2. Continuous steam injection
This recovery method has been used for many years in which steam is continuously injected
into one or more vertical wells, and the oil is pushed away to producing wells. Since this process
requires injectors and producers, a larger area inside of the reservoir is embraced, and oil
14
Recoveries higher than those provided by cyclical steam injection are obtained. Oil recovery in
this process can reach up to 50% or more, but thermal efficiency is lower than in cyclical steam
injection. Heating of the oil has the following effects: Thermal expansion, Viscosity reduction,
Activation of solution gas drive, Distillation (thermal cracking) and potentially wettability
modification.
Figure-1.4.3: Steam injection scheme taking account gravity.

Gravity drainage is one of the most important mechanisms by which oil is recovered from
fractured carbonate reservoirs. Recent projects for oil recovery have proposed the combination
of vertical and horizontal wells, but some technical problems still exist such as minimization of
the impact of the gas cap and of water influx. The methods of continuous and cyclical steam
injection are frequently combined and used, whereby wells produce oil through cyclical
stimulation before the beginning of continuous steam injection. In the case of very viscous oils,
stimulation prior to continuous injection is essential to obtain flow communication between
injectors and producers. This communication can be established through the creation of
fractures among the wells, which can be done by injecting steam at sufficiently high pressures.
Oil saturations behind the steam zone can be as low as 5%. In the steam displacement
experiments in fractured models, it was found that the steam enters into the fracture or the
matrix depending on the steam rate.
1.4.3 Steam injection technology:
The core of the steam injection technology is the borehole steam injection thermal insulated
tubing. The thermally insulated tubing may minimize heat losses during steam injection. Steam-
injection thermal insulated tubing composed of vacuum insulation pipe, extension pipe, and
15
Heat-sensitive packer. Borehole steam injection thermal insulated tubing developed by
CNPC (China National Petroleum Corporation) is one of the most efficient thermal insulated
tubing around the world.
1.4.4 Steam Stimulation Recovery Technology
Steam stimulation is also known as a periodic steam injection or cyclic steam injection
method. With a simple application, quick production enhancement and high economic
efficiency, steam stimulation is the most popular method for heavy oil development. Through
years ‘researches and development, these technologies can be divided into three series, Steam
Injection Matching Technology, Uplifting Associated Technology, Enhanced Heavy Oil
Steam Stimulation Recovery Technology, Which is ten major thermal injection and
production technologies.
Figure-1.4.4: Steam flooding
The injection of steam as a recovery method for heavy oil has been used for many years in
the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Venezuela. In this process, steam is continuously
injected into one or more vertical wells, and the oil is pushed away to producing wells.
Since this process requires injectors and producers, a larger area inside of the reservoir is
embraced, and oil recoveries higher than those provided by cyclical steam injection are
obtained. Oil recovery in this process can reach up to 50% or more, but thermal efficiency is
lower than in cyclical steam injection. Steam flooding is a process in which high-
pressure steam is injected into the oil zone to
16
Supply the thermal energy to reduce the viscosity of oil which will be pushed towards to
production well as in conventional fluid injection operations. The steam is primarily used as
a displacing agent which is intended to displace the oil in place. To make steam flooding
effective, the oil viscosity at reservoir conditions should be low enough to provide mobility,
along with a high permeability of the reservoirs [4]. Under pressure gradient, as shown in
Figure below, it is suggested that steam flooding methods can be applied to heavy oil
reservoirs with crudes in the range 12º – 25 º API.
As seen in Figure2.2 below, due to density differences, the steam separates out
gravitationally and overrides. This tendency favors the early breakthrough of steam into the
producers. To decrease the overriding effect around the well, the perforated interval should
be placed at the bottom of the formation. Before breakthrough, during the steam drive
process, different zones are formed [2]
Zone 1: The condensing zone with hot water essentially at steam temperature.
Zone 2: The steam-saturated zone in which the oil saturation is reduced to less than 15 %,
conditional on the viscosity of oil at reservoir temperature and on the steam temperature in
the steam generator.
Zone 3: Hot water transition zone with a decreasing temperature from hot water to
water near reservoir temperature.
Zone 4: Oil deposits pushed to the producers by the hot water zone.
The main purpose of steam-drive is to increase the ultimate recovery factor while for cyclic
steam injection it is to stimulate the formation to produce at a higher rate. Only if the
productive formation is thick, and the reservoir produces due to gravity drainage, the cyclic
steam injection also increases the oil recovery.
17
Figure-1.4.5: Illustrative mechanism of steam flooding process
As shown in Figure 1.4.5 above, there is a steam zone in the vicinity of the injection well at
steam temperature. Further ahead, there is hot water zone in which mixture of heated oil and
hot water is pushed ahead towards production wells.
In summary, the following processes holds;
• Similar to water drive in conventional oil reservoirs
• Inter-well mobility needed to inject steam at effective rates (pre-heating is usually required)
• Usually applied after huff and puff
• Poor vertical sweep due to gravity override and reservoir heterogeneities

• Recovery up to 40%.
Steam drive projects examples are; Husky Pikes Peak (Sask.), California, Indonesia (Duri
Project), Maracaibo, Venezuela [10].Examples of steam drives patterns.
18
Figure: Examples of steam drives patterns
1.4.5 In-situ combustion (ISC):
This process was first tested in Pennsylvania in the early 1950s. Over 200 in situ
combustion field tests and commercial operations have been carried out worldwide, but
only a few are still in operation. In in-situ combustion, fire is generated inside the reservoir
by injecting a gas containing oxygen, such as air and a special heater in the well ignites the
oil in the reservoir and starts a fire. Heat is generated as a result of oil oxidation, increasing
the temperature.
The heat generated by burning the heavy hydrocarbons in place produces hydrocarbon
cracking, vaporization of light hydro carbon sand reservoir water in addition to the
deposition of heavier hydrocarbons known as coke. As the fire moves, the burning front
pushes ahead a mixture of hot combustion gases, steam and hot water, which in turn
reduces oil viscosity and displaces oil toward production wells as depicted in figure.
19
Figure-1.4.6: In-Situ Combustion
In this process, care should be taken with parameters such as combustion temperature and
gravitational segregation of the gases that leads to early combustion zone breakthrough in
the producers. This is not as successful as steam-flood operation, but it is more effective for
moderately thick reservoirs with viscous oils. The methods used in in-situ combustion can
be divided as-Forward combustion methods: dry combustion, wet combustion, and reverse
combustion methods.
Dry Forward Combustion
The most commonly used form of the combustion process is simple air injection. It is called
dry combustion to distinguish it from wet combustion, in which water and air are injected
together.
Wet Combustion
Wet combustion is the process in which water passes through the combustion front along
with the air and always applied to forward combustion. The water entering the combustion
zone may be either in the liquid or vapor phase, or both.
20
Reverse Combustion
In this process, air is injectearding combustion process. After the burning zone moves within
a short distance from the ignition well, air injection is stopped in the ignition wells, and it is
started in adjacent wells. The air injection is continued in the adjacent wells in order to drive
the oil towed through ignition wells that eventually become oil producing wells. Initially, the
reverse combustion process starts as forwards the wells which previously were ignition
wells. The combustion front moves in the opposite direction towards the adjacent wells. The
oxygen required for combustion is only supplied by air, which is continuously injected into
the adjacent wells.
Figure-1.4.7: Effect of fracture intensity on oil recovery of steam

injection
(a) Gravity segregation, or gas overriding, due to the difference between the gas and oil
densities.
(b) Channeling, due to the unfavorable rock heterogeneity.
(c) Unfavorable gas/oil mobility ratio.
THAI ‘Toe-to- Heel Air Injection’ is an EOR process which integrates into situ combustion
and advanced horizontal well concepts. In this process, a horizontal well is used as oil
producer at the bottom of the reservoir, and a vertical well is employed as air injector at the
top and near the end (toe) of the horizontal well. The air injected into the vertical well
generates the combustion front that burns part of the oil and releases heat. The heat reduces
the oil viscosity inside the reservoir, which flows to the horizontal well at the bottom, due to
21
Gravity. The combustion front sweeps from the end of the horizontal producer (toe) up to the
heel, leading to recoveries of oil up to 80%. Investigations reveals that during the first hours
of the operation the oil recovery from the fractured medium is higher due to ease of
production from fracture while later production from the fractured medium will be limited to
the production of oil from the matrix which is controlled by diffusion of the oxygen into the
matrix and expansion of the oil from the matrix.
Figure-1.4.8: THAI Recovery Process.
1.4.6 Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD)

Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) and its variations are technologies that have been
recently considered as more effective in the recovery of heavy oil and bituminous sands. The
method involves two horizontal parallel wells vertically separated by a short distance, where
the top well serves as steam injector and the bottom well picks up reservoir water, condensed
water, and heated oil. Gravity is the acting force in this process. When steam is continually
injected at the top well, oil is heated up and forms a steam chamber that grows up and
towards the surroundings, as can be observed in Figure 10.This technology is characterized
by high production capacity, high oil/ gas ratio, high final recovery factor, reduced inter-well
interference and minimized premature inter- well channeling. To make an SAGD process
successful, a steam circulation process for both the injection and production wells, in a
period of about three months is required to establish the communication between injection
22
and production wells [3, 8, 9].
In early 2005, SAGD development involving a combination of vertical well and horizontal
well was implemented successfully in Guantao Formation (with an average depth of 600m)
as can be seen in figure 2.4 and 2.4.1 respectively. At the same time, favorable SAGD
development performances have been obtained through dynamic tracing and optimization.
The trend of production reduction has been turned and productivity increased together with
enlargement of the steam chamber.
Figure-1.4.9: Illustration of the steam chamber cross-section in SAGD
In this process running this method might be risky due to the probability of decomposition of
the rock and production of carbon dioxide at high temperatures. Besides all the concerns,
economy and instrumentation requirements are other considerations that should come into
account. The most significant operation problems affecting recovery from heavy oil
reservoirs using vertical-vertical good pattern in situ combustions.
23
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
As Dusseault, M. B. (2001) demonstrated that Heavy oil is any liquid petroleum that has API
between 18° to 25°. It is oil that has high viscosity between 10 and 100 cp. It has high specific
gravity or density compared to other type of crude oil. The chemical composition of heavy oil
starts with 5 carbons (C5+).
Heavy oil contributes with high percentage between all the liquids of all types. About 70% of
all liquid estimates are heavy oil. Heavy oil is located in depth between 1000ft to 10000 feet
only. Oil production has 3 types which are primary recovery, secondary recovery and tertiary
recovery.
Primary recovery is the type in which the production of oil is from the natural mechanisms.
These mechanisms are the water drive mechanism and the gas mechanism. The water
mechanism is due to the water below water/oil contact displaces the produced oil and forces
the oil to be produced. This is due to the high pressure the water exerts on the oil. On the other
hand, the gas drive mechanism is due to the expansion of gas which exerts pressure on the oil
from above which helps in the production of oil.
Secondary recovery is used when there is no sufficient pressure in the reservoir to force the
oil to be produced. It is used to increase the natural reservoir drive. It can be used to inject
water into the reservoir or to re-inject the natural gas again to the reservoir. In which it
maintains enough pressure to produce oil again.
Tertiary recovery or Enhanced oil recovery is used to increase the mobility to make the
production of oil easier.
When exploration risks, environmental risks, permitting issues, oil recovery speed and
implementation costs are taken into consideration, the solution is the enhanced oil recovery
which is the means for all demands.
Oil consumption rate is at approximately 90 million barrels per day. One third of the
production will be increased in the next 15 years so it can meet the world demands. Eighty
five billion dollars ($85 Billion) of annual investments are required to provide the market
stability to 2025.
According to all the previous inquiries, the world market needs Enhanced oil Recovery. That is
24
Because it is the ultimate way to give you the optimum production and optimum recovery
factor from the reservoir.
By using Enhanced oil recovery, oil can be produced with less expense, faster and without any
disturbance to the environment from the existing wells. Enhanced oil recovery can prolong the
oil field life by 25 to 30 years when applied on proven reserves.
2.1. Critical review

K. Alnoaimi (2010) stated that the main idea in the thermal injection is to introduce heat to
the reservoir. In which it will lead to decrease in the viscosity. In Figure 2 it shows the
relation between the oil viscosity and the temperature for typical heavy oil. As indicated in
Figure 2 that the viscosity decreases as the temperature increases.
Figure 2.1: Viscosity vs. Temperature
And also from the graph it is very clear that the viscosity rapidly decreases with the
increase of temperature specifically at lower temperature which means by introducing small
amount of heat in cold formation it will rapidly decreases the viscosity. By decreasing the
viscosity the mobility of the heavy oil will increase which make the oil production easier.
The most common way in thermal injection is the steam injection. Water has three states which
25
are solid (ice), liquid (water) and gas (water vapour). In steam injection, the only concern is
with liquid and gas phases, and the changing from one phase to another. The region in which
water is existing with two phases - liquid and gas – is the important part in steam injection in
the oil field.
2.2 Steam properties
As mentioned by Moritis, G. (2000), word steam is not accurate designation. Steam not only
refers to the gas phase of water, but it refers to the liquid phase as well. It refers alsoto their
co-exist from any temperature starting from 32° F and more, and any pressure starting
from 0.1 psi and more. Steam can be either 100% liquid, liquid and gas, or 100% gas. Heat
capacity is very important term in steam injection. Steam injection depends on increasing
the temperature in which it leads to further study to the steam properties. Heat capacity unit
is Btu/(lbm.°F). Btu means the British thermal unit. It is defined as the amount of energy
needed to increase or decrease one pound of water by 1°F. Pure water has the highest heat
capacity between all solid and liquid substances.
Specific heat can be calculated by dividing the heat capacity of any substance to the pure
water heat capacity. Specific capacity of petroleum is 0.5, which means it has half the heat
capacity of water. In addition, sandstone has 0.2. Water is the highest substance that carries
heat per pound that is why it is used in steam injection. The temperature range in which this
heat is carrying is very wide – 32 °F to 700 °F - which makes it the best fluid to be used in
many processes including steam injection.
The region in which the water change from one phase to another is called steam quality and
it is defined as:
ƒ𝑠 𝑚𝑣
= 𝑚𝑣 + 𝑚𝑙
26
Atkins, Peter and de Paula (2006) mentioned another steam property that is the basis for the
steam injection calculation, which is the change in enthalpy. Enthalpy is the amount of heat
released or used at constant pressure within a system and it is defined as:
H = U + PV
Change in enthalpy is very useful and it is defined as:
∆H = ∆U + ∆PV
Atkins et al. also mentioned that sensible heat (ℎ𝑓) is the amount of heat used to
change the temperature of a substance but do not change its phase. On the other hand, the
amount of heat that is needed to change the phase of the substance but does not change
the temperature is called latent heat (ℎ𝑓𝑣). The total heat (ℎ𝑣) in 100% quality steam is:
ℎ𝑣 = ℎ𝑓𝑣 + ℎ𝑓
Figure 2.2: saturation steam temperature vs. saturated steam pressure
Steam can exist only at certain temperature for a given pressure while its phase is changing
as shown in Figure 2.2.
As mentioned by Keenan et al. (1969) and Chien (1992), the following equations were
derived with an acceptable accuracy of few percent for most steam injection calculations:
27
2.3 Reservoir Heating
Marx and Langenheim (1959) were the first to adapt the solution mentioned by
Carslaw and Jaeger (1950) and publish it. They assumed that the equations for
temperature response in a thin plate and, backed in perfect contact to a semi-infinite solid
after sudden exposure to constant-heat input.
They came out with a graph to the heat distribution in the reservoir which is shown
below:
Figure 2.3: Temperature vs Radial distance

According to Figure 4, the area most affected by the thermal injection is the one that is
closest to the injector well. As the radial distance increases the temperature effect also
decreases, until it reaches the point where the reservoir temperature is the initial reservoir
temperature.
28
2.4 Steam injection techniques
There are several techniques of thermal injection. The most two common techniques will
be discussed which cyclic steam stimulation and steam are flooding.
2.4.1 Cyclic Steam Stimulation

It is called Huff & Puff. Cyclic steam is based on one vertical well. This well will be
used first to inject the steam and then is used to produce the oil. It is done on three stages which
are injection, soaking and production as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 2.4.1: cyclic steam stimulation steps (Alvarez and Han (2013)
First we determine the amount of steam that is needed to be injected in the reservoir. After the
amount of steam needed to heat the reservoir is determined, the first stage of the cyclic steam
stimulation is ready, which is injection of steam into the reservoir, as shown in the previous
Figure.
After the steam is injected into the reservoir the well is shut down to let the reservoir heat and
this stage is called soaking. After the heat is already spread through the reservoir the viscosity
decreases due to the increase in the temperature. The increase in temperature will lead to
increase in the mobility and as a result of that the well is converted into production well, as
shown in the previous Figure. The well will continue to produce until the effect of the heat
injected disappears and then again the cycle will be repeated.
29
This cycle will be repeated until economical limit is reached; normally the larger
percentage of the oil is produced in the first cycles.
Alvarez and Han (2013) posted that it is better to do some cyclic steam stimulation
before Switching to another enhanced oil recovery method, such as steam flooding method.
Cyclic steam stimulation recovery factor is in the range of 10 to 30%. It has some
limitations
 Applied for reservoir which their thicknesses are greater than 30 feet.
 Applied for reservoir in which it depth less than 3000 feet.
 It is desirable that the reservoir has high porosity and oil saturation.
2.4.2 Steam flooding

Vertical wells not like Cyclic steam stimulation, in steam flooding some wells are used
for injection and others are used for production, as shown in Figure 2.4.2.
Figure 2.4.2: Steam flooding using vertical wells (Harrigal and Clayton (1992))
Usually the distance between the two wells around 100 meters. In this method high
quality steam injection is used. The same mechanism as cyclic steam stimulation is used
also here in steam flooding. Steam is introduced to the reservoir to heat the reservoir
which will decrease the viscosity. As Harrigal and Clayton (1992) demonstrated that
steam flooding has another mechanism which is the steam and hot water physically
displaces the oil.
30
Steam flooding recovery factor is between 40 to 60%, which is higher than that of the
cyclic steam stimulation. By using steam flooding method, it can reach a point in which
it will not be economically to use it as EOR so it is better to be switched to water
flooding.
Horizontal wells
It is called Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage. Jiang, Q. et al. (2009) mentioned that it is

considered to be an advanced form of steam flooding. SAGD is differ than the Cyclic
steam stimulation and Steam flooding, in which SAGD uses two horizontal wells which
are few meters apart, as shown in Figure 7. The upper well injects the steam. The injected
steam will increase the temperatures which lead to decrease in the viscosity. This
decrease in viscosity will result in high mobility of the oil toward the lower well. The
lower well is the production well as explained before. Oil moves to the lower well due to
the gravity effect.
McCormack, M. (2001) said that SAGD recovery factor is between 40 to 60%. It has
some limitations:
 The pay zone must be greater than 40 feet.

 The permeability should be greater than 3 Darcy.
 Absence of bottom or top water.
At the mean time there are attempts to improve SAGD and increase its limitations
byadd non- condensable gas to the steam stream.
Figure 2.4.3: Steam flooding using horizontal wells (Jiang, Q. et al. (2009))
According to the study that was done by Manrique, E. J. et al. (2010); it was mentioned
31
that the steam flooding has the fastest rate of increase in the average reservoir
temperature. This will lead to the greatest rate of net recovery as compared to cyclic steam
stimulation. Steam flooding exhibited a much quicker payout of development capital and
a greater present value return per dollar invested.
Manrique et al. (2010) also mentioned that cyclic steam stimulation recovered the
same percentage of original oil in place as steam flooding. However, cyclic steam took
longer time than steam flooding to recover the same amount of oil.
In general, steam flooding recovers more than cyclic steam stimulation. As mentioned
before, cyclic steam stimulation can only recover 10 to 30% while steam flooding can
recover from 40 to 60% of the original oil in place.
32
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. RESERVOIR MODELLING

Reservoir Modelling is a process of creating a three-dimensional representation based on
its petro-physical, geological, geophysical properties. These properties are defined by
geoscientists and engineers during reservoir characterization where physical and
chemical of the reservoir is extrapolated throughout the reservoir.
3.1.2. Reservoir Simulation

Reservoir simulation is a predictive tool that had become a standard method in oil
industry.it is used to obtain accurate hydrocarbon production under different operating
conditions. Usually, all petroleum projects incur heavy capital investments in order to
mitigate high loss in investment specific development strategies are selected using
reservoir simulation process. Figure 3.1 shows the flowchart of reservoir simulation.
Figure 3.1: Flowchart of Reservoir Simulation
3.2. COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LTD. - CMG

3.2.1. Builder
Create datasets (input files) for CMG simulators with the help of Builder, a program
that runs on Microsoft Windows. Builder is compatible with all three CMG
33
simulators: IMEX, GEM And STARS. Generating and importing grids and grid
characteristics, finding wells, importing well production data, importing or creating
fluid models, rock-fluid properties, and beginning conditions are all part of Builder's
comprehensive data input functionality. Builder has many features for working with
data, including checking for errors, manipulating data, and making tables from
correlations. You may preview and double-check your data before actually starting the
simulation.
Operating Procedure of BUILDER 2015.10

1. Open Builder 2015.10 by double clicking on the appropriate icon in the Launcher.
2. Builder will start, and the Reservoir Simulator Settings dialog will appear. Under
Simulator, there are three models; GEM, IMEX and STARS. The details can be
found in the user manuals [6 & 7].
 IMEX is a three-phase black-oil simulator
 GEM is a compositional simulator, used for the most of the EOR projects e.g.,
CO2 injection, WAG injection, CO2 sequestration with EGR, and CO2
Sequestration with ECBMR
 Main difference between GEM and IMEX is in Component Property Section
 STARS are a Thermal simulator, used for thermal recovery and foam flooding
projects i.e., steam-assisted gravity drainage, steam drive flooding, in-situ
combustion and foam flooding.
 Main difference between IMEX and STARS is in Reservoir Description
Section, Well and Recurrent Data and Component Property Section.
3.2.2. Reservoir Description

The Reservoir data from the field such as permeability, porosity, crude oil composition,
Temperature, pressure, depth of the reservoir, physical properties of components in
crude oil, relative permeability, water saturation tables and oil saturation tables, are
taken and is used as input to reservoir simulator tool “CMG STARS”. It is advanced
compositional simulator that is used for most of the EOR projects. Modelling in gem
simulator requires to open Builder 2015 and it has 7 important steps for a successful
model. They are
1. I/O Control 2. Reservoir 3. Component
4. Rock-Fluid 5. Initial Conditions 6. Numerical
7. Well & Recurrent
34
Figure 3.2 shows the Flowchart for CMG STARS Simulator.
Figure 3.2: Flowchart for CMG STARS Simulator
35
4. CASE STUDIES
The required data for carrying the present studies on the STARS Software have been taken from
the literature. The details of each case study are provided in this chapter.
4.1. CASE STUDY- 1 [Condor, J., Suebsiri, J., Wilson, M., and Asghari, K. (2010)] Table
4.1 represents the physical properties that are considered for simulating the reservoir at
laboratory conditions with 8 blocks of length 100 meters in I direction similarly in j-direction
has 8 blocks of 100 meters each and in z-direction it has only on layer of length 5 meters. Table
4.2 presents fluid composition data and Tables 4.3 and 4.4 give water-oil and gas-oil saturation
data for Case Study 1.
Table 4.1: Reservoir Properties for Case Study 1
Property Value UNITS
Grid Dimensions 8*8*1
Block Dimension Along “I” Direction 100 M
Block Dimension Along “J” Direction 100 M
Block Dimension Along “K” Direction 5 M
Porosity 0.3
Permeability Along “I” Direction 30 MD
Permeability Along “J” Direction 30 MD
Permeability Along “K” Direction 30 MD
Reservoir Rock Compressibility 4*10^-6
Reservoir Pressure 17000 KPA
Water Saturation Of Reservoir 0.4
Well Type VERTICAL
Reservoir Temperature 36 C
Table 4.2: Water Saturation Tables for Case Study 1

Sw Krw Krow
.20000000 .00000000 1.00000000
.21458333 .00006265 .96891333
.22916667 .00035438 .93815563
.24375000 .00097656 .90773047
.25833333 .00200469 .87764152
.27291667 .00350205 .84789257
.28750000 .00552427 .81848755
.30208333 .00812161 .78943055
.31666667 .01134023 .76072577
.33125000 .01522310 .73237760
36
.34583333 .01981057 .70439058
.36041667 .02514077 .67676943
.37500000 .03125000 .64951905
.38958333 .03817291 .62264458
.40416667 .04594275 .59615133
.41875000 .05459150 .57004489
.43333333 .06415003 .54433105
.44791667 .07464818 .51901593
.82708333 .75957042 .03361965
.84166667 .80450472 .02405626
.85625000 .85099732 .01562500
.87083333 .89906582 .00850517
.88541667 .94872764 .00300703
.90000000 1.00000000 .00000000
Table 4.3: Gas Saturation Table for Case Study 1

Sg Krg Krog
.00000000 .00000000 1.00000000
.01666667 .00300703 .93444444
.03333333 .00850517 .87111111
.05000000 .01562500 .81000000
.06666667 .02405626 .75111111
.08333333 .03361965 .69444444
.10000000 .04419417 .64000000
.11666667 .05569102 .58777778
37
Table 4.3: Gas Saturation Table for Case Study 1 (Continued)
Sg Krg Krog
.13333333 .06804138 .53777778
.15000000 .08118988 .49000000
.16666667 .09509072 .44444444
.18333333 .10970519 .40111111
.20000000 .12500000 .36000000
.21666667 .14094614 .32111111
.23333333 .15751800 .28444444
.25000000 .17469281 .25000000
.26666667 .19245009 .21777778
.28333333 .21077133 .18777778
.30000000 .22963966 .16000000
.31666667 .24903968 .13444444
.33333333 .26895718 .11111111
.35000000 .28937905 .09000000
.36666667 .31029313 .07111111
.38333333 .33168811 .05444444
.40000000 .35355339 .04000000
.41666667 .37587908 .02777778
.43333333 .39865587 .01777778
.45000000 .42187500 .01000000
.46666667 .44552819 .00444444
.48333333 .46960763 .00111111
.50000000 .49410588 .00000000
.51666667 .51901593 .00000000
.53333333 .54433105 .00000000
.55000000 .57004489 .00000000
.56666667 .59615133 .00000000
.58333333 .62264458 .00000000
.60000000 .64951905 .00000000
.61666667 .67676943 .00000000
.63333333 .70439058 .00000000
.65000000 .73237760 .00000000
.66666667 .76072577 0.0000000
.68333333 .78943055 .00000000
.70000000 .81848755 .00000000
38
Table 4.3 Gas Saturation Table for Case Study 1 (Continued)
Sg Krg Krog
.71666667 .84789257 .00000000
.73333333 .87764152 .00000000
.75000000 .90773047 .00000000
.76666667 .93815563 .00000000
.78333333 .96891333 .00000000
.80000000 1.00000000 .00000000
RESERVIOUR MODEL
Figure 4.1 represents a simple reservoir model with a vertical well has 8 blocks in I
direction 8 blocks J direction and 1 block in K direction.it has a permeability of 30 md
along I direction an30 md in j direction and 30 md in k direction and has a uniform
porosity of 0.3 and initial water saturation of 0.4. The reservoir rock compressibility is of
the order 4E-6 and has a pressure of 17000 kilopascal and Temperature is 36
centigrade.it has 64 grid blocks and 160 exterior faces that are to be rendered using
STARS SIMULATOR. The Compositional model is created by using WINPROP by
taking reservoir composition as input and basic physical properties like Critical
temperature, Critical Pressure, Compressibility factor.
Figure 4.1: Reservoir Model
The remaining factors like temperature, acentric factor, Molecular weight and all other
properties like viscosity, and shape factors like omega A, omega B, Z factor, volume
39
shift and vunna book check chesthunnaruVolume shift coefficients, boiling
temperatures are calculated using predefined functions in the simulator.
Figure 4.2: Reservoir Composition
Figure 4.2 represents reservoir fluid composition and the relative volumes of each fluid in
the reservoir. This figure consists of several physical properties like critical pressure, critical
temperature, acentric factor, Molecular weight and all other properties like viscosity, and
shape factors like omega A, omega B, Z factor, volume shift and volume shift coefficients,
boiling temperatures are calculated using predefined functions in the simulator. VLE
predictions have been done using Peng –Robinson model (1976)].
Figure 4.3: Initial Conditions

40
Figure 4.3 depicts what are the initial conditions that are considered at the start of simulation.
They are so many methods to select initial conditions for simulations. In this simulation we
are selecting user specified pressure and user specifies saturation percentage at a reference
depth prescribed by the user.
Figure 4.4 shows number of wells and orientation of well on the grid blocks. This simulation
has 8 blocks in I-direction in 100 meters each and 8 blocks in J-direction in 100 meters each
and 1 block in K-direction with 5 meters of length each and has 2 Injectors and 2 production
wells. This above represented picture is 2-dimensional representation of present simulated
reservoir which has a four-spot method of injection and production wells at four corner grid
blocks of the reservoir, and well constraints are the final conditions of the simulated reservoir.
The maximum surface gas rate for the injected well is 7000m 3/day for each well and for
production wells the maximum water cut rate 0.85 % and bottom hole pressure 15 kilopascal,
maximum 2 mole percent.
Figure 4.4: Well Data
Figure 4.5 represents well working conditions and injection quantity of temperature. It
represents the data of the well, working conditions of the well depth, well perforation data,
injected fluid composition, well type whether the well is injector or producer.in this case the
simulated reservoir has 4 wells 2 injectors and 2 producers. In this case, 100% is injected
continuously.
41
Fig 4.5 well Constraints
It may be noted that the simulations conducted for 3-year period starting from 2010 January
to 2013 December 2013 with 1-month step and all the production data is interpreted in the
simulator with a time step of 1 month of time. Figure 4.6 shows well simulation dates.
Figure 4.6: Well Simulation Dates
4.2 CASE STUDY - 2 [Yeap, W. J. (2018)] & [49]

Table 4.5 presents the physical properties that are considered for simulating the reservoir at
reservoir conditions with 20 blocks of length 350 feet in I direction similarly in j-direction
has 20 blocks of 350 feet each and in z-direction it has only on layer of length 50 feet.
42
Table 4.4: Reservoir Data for Case Study 2

Block Dimension Along “I” Direction 350 Ft
Block Dimension Along “J” Direction 350 Ft
Block Dimension Along “K” Direction 50 Ft
Porosity 0.15
Grid Top 7400 Ft
Well Type VERTICAL
Reservoir Temperature 200 f
Reference Pressure 3500 Psia
Reference Depth 75000 ft
Depth Of Water Oil Contact 7725 ft
The Table 4.4 gives the reservoir fluid composition which is found at laboratory analysis of
reservoir fluid this fluid has maximum percent of light hydrocarbons which are more
favorable towards Thermal injection. Tables 4.5 and 4.6 give water-oil and gas – oil
saturation data for Case Study 2.
Table 4.5: Water – Oil saturation for Case Study 2

Sw Krw Krow Pcow
0.160 0 .740 50
0.200 .002 .680 32
0.240 .010 .620 21
0.280 .020 .562 15.5
0.320 .033 .505 12.0
0.360 .049 .450 9.2
0.400 .066 .400 7
0.440 .090 .348 5.3
0.480 .119 .300 4.2
0.520 .150 .260 3.4
0.560 .186 .222 2.7
0.600 .227 .187 2.1
0.640 .277 0.156 1.7
43
0.680 .330 0.126 1.3
0.720 .390 0.1 1.0
0.760 .462 0.078 .7
0.800 .540 0.058 .5
0.840 .620 0.040 .4
0.880 .710 0.026 .3
0.920 .800 0.013 .2
0.960 .900 0.005 .1
0.995 1.0 0.0 0
0.005 0 .740 0
0.040 .005 .650 0
0.080 .013 .513 0
Table 4.6 Gas - Oil Saturation data for Case Study 2
Sg Krg Krog Pcog

0.120 .026 .400 0
0.160 .040 .315 0
0.200 .058 .250 0
0.240 0.078 .196 0
0.280 .1 .150 0
0.320 .126 .112 0
0.360 .156 .082 0
0.400 .187 .060 0
0.440 .222 .040 0
44
Table 4.6 Gas - Oil Saturation data for Case Study 2 (Continued)
Sg Krg Krog Pcog

0.480 .260 .024 0
0.520 .300 .012 0
0.560 .348 0.005 0
0.600 .400 0 0
0.640 .450 0 0
0.680 .505 0 0
0.720 .562 0 0
0.760 .620 0 0
0.800 .680 0 0
0.840 .740 0 0
Figure 4.7 represents a simple reservoir model with a vertical well has 20 blocks in I direction
20 blocks J direction and 6 block in K direction.it has a permeability of 100 md along I
direction a 100 md in j direction and 100 md in k direction and has a uniform porosity of 0.15
and initial water saturation of 0.4. The reservoir rock compressibility is of the order 4E-6 and
has a Temperature is 200 F. The depth of water oil contact is 7725 feet and the simulation is
conducted at the pressure 3500 Pisa.
Figure 4.7: Reservoir model for Case Study 2
45
Figure 4.8: Fluid Composition Data for Case Study 2
The Figure 4.8 shows fluid composition and the relative volumes of each fluid in the
reservoir. The data presented here is from the table 4.5. This figure consists of several
physical properties like critical pressure, critical temperature, acentric factor, Molecular
weight and all other properties like viscosity, and shape factors like omega A, omega B, Z
factor, volume shift and volume shift coefficients, boiling temperatures are calculated using
predefined functions in the simulator.
Figure 4.9 shows what are the initial conditions that are considered at the start of simulation.
They are so many methods to select initial conditions for simulations. In this simulation we
are selecting block saturation at each grid block method with no free gas at the reservoir and
the reservoir has only water and oil only.
Figure 4.10 represents well working conditions and injection quantity of Thermal inject. It
represents the data of the well, working conditions of the well depth, well perforation data,
injected fluid composition, well type whether the well is injector or producer.in this case the
simulated reservoir has 4 wells 2 injectors and 2 producers. In this case we are injecting
100% pure compositions with under continuous injections.in this case we are injecting 6
MMSCF per day into reservoir through injector wells.
46
Figure 4.9: Initial Conditions for Case Study 2
Figure 4.10: Well Constraints for Case Study 2
Figure 4.11 shows the simulation conducted for 10-year period starting from 2021 January to
December 2030 with 1-year step and all the production data is interpreted in the simulator
with a time step of 1 year of time. That means the results are generated very year starting
from 2021,2022,2023,2024,2025,2026,2027,2028,2029,2030 on 1 of January.
47
Figure 4.11: Well Simulation Dates for Case Study 2
4.2 CASE STUDY - 3 [48]

Table 4.7 Reservoir Data for Case Study 3

Block Dimension Along “I” Direction 300 Ft
Block Dimension Along “J” Direction 300 Ft
Block Dimension Along “K” Direction 2 Ft
Porosity 0.15
Grid Top 9800 Ft
Well Type VERTICAL/ DEVIATED
Reservoir Temperature 200 F
Reference Pressure 4900 Psia
Reference Depth 10000 Ft
Depth Of Water Oil Contact 10100 Ft
48
Table 4.8: Water Saturation Data for Case Study 3
Sw Kr Kro
w w
0.2 0 0.8
0.225 0.00117187 0.703125
0.25 0.0046875 0.6125
0.275 0.0105469 0.578254
0.3 0.01875 0.45
0.325 0.0292969 0.415314
0.35 0.0649311 0.3125
0.375 0.0710567 0.297703
0.4 0.0771822 0.2634
0.425 0.0949219 0.15559
0.45 0.132312 0.1125
0.475 0.138438 0.0918836
0.5 0.187443 0.0833078
0.525 0.194793 0.0306279
0.55 0.256049 0.0281776
0.575 0.263672 0.003125
Table 4.9: Liquid-oil Saturation data for Case Study 3

Sl Kr Krog
g
0.4 0.3 0
0.434375 0.263672 0.0085758
0.46875 0.260949 0.0171516
0.503125 0.198047 0.028125
0.5375 0.184992 0.0722818
0.571875 0.141797 0.0906585
49
Table 4.9: Liquid-oil Saturation data for Case Study 3 (Continued)
Sl Kr Krog
g
0.60625 0.117188 0.1125
0.640625 0.104135 0.187443
0.675 0.0882083 0.20827
0.709375 0.0661562 0.280551
0.74375 0.0453292 0.349158
0.778125 0.0404288 0.42634
0.8125 0.0306279 0.45
0.846875 0.0232772 0.63706
0.88125 0.0046875 0.668913
0.915625 0.00117188 0.703125
0.95 0 0.8
Figure 4.12: Reservoir model for Case Study - 3
Figure 4.12 represents a complex reservoir model with a vertical wells and deviated wells has
27 blocks in I direction 45 blocks J direction and 4 block in K direction.it has a permeability
of 100 md along I direction an 100 md in j direction and 25 md in k direction and has a
differential porosity and initial water saturation of 0.4. The reservoir rock compressibility is of
the order 4E-6 and has an Temperature is 200 F. The reservoir is present at a depth of 9802
feet from the ground level and has a pressure of 3390 psia. This reservoir is constructed based
upon
50
the actual reservoir data where geographical mapping of reservoir is constructed based on the
Couture Mappings.
Figure 4.13: Reservoir fluid composition for Case Study-3
Figure 4.13 shows reservoir fluid composition and the relative volumes of each fluid in the
reservoir and several fluid properties like acentric factor critical pressure, critical temperature
and molecular weight. There are so many other factors that are calculated in the tool like
critical pressure critical temperature, volume shift coefficient, critical temperature.
Figure 4.14: Initial Conditions for Case Study 3
51
Figure 4.14 depicts the are the initial conditions that are considered at the start of simulation.
In this case we are conducting our simulation at reference pressure of 4900 psi and at 10000
feet depth where water oil contact is at 10100 feet
Figure 4.15: Relative permeability curves for Case Study 3
The curves shown in Figure 4.15 are generated by tool based on the given water saturation
and oil saturation data that are collected by the reservoir engineers during reservoir
characterization. The graph presented above denotes relative permeability on ordinate and
water saturation on abscissa. here in the above graph water saturation starts from 0.2 to 0.58
and the relative permeability of water with rock starts from zero to 0.32 and the relative
permeability of oil with rock is initially at 0.8 goes on reducing and becomes 0 finally. These
curves are generated based on the data given in Tables 4.11, and 4.11.
Figure 4.16 shows well working conditions and constraints and injection quantity of model
has 10 wells in which four wells are injection wells and the remaining six wells are
production wells. All production wells have same operating conditions and at 700 psi is the
pressure at which the simulation stops. And at water cut equal to 0.83 the simulation stops.
All injected wells are injected with pure Thermal Injected at a rate of 8000 cubic feet per day.
Figure 4.17 provides the details of the simulation conducted for 10-year period starting from
2021 January to December 2030 with 1-year step and all the production data is interpreted in
52
the simulator with a time step of 1 year of time. That means the results are generated very year
starting from 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030 on 1 of January.
Figure 4.16: Well Constraints for Case Study – 3
Figure 4.17: Well Simulation Dates for Case Study 3
53
5. RESULTS AND DISSICUSION
The results of the simulation studies performed using CMG-STARS are presented for the
three case studies and a brief discussion is given.
5.1 CASE STUDY - 1
Figure 5.1: Oil production vs time (bbl/day)
The Figure 5.1 represents the oil production in cubic meter per day where y axis denotes rete
of oil produced in cubic meter per day and x axis denotes Time. From this plot, the recovery
factor of the base case producing at a primarily production rate after simulation is about 25
cubic meter per day and field recovery is about 50 cubic meter per day and it has an overall
recovery efficiency of 97% as it is a laboratory model.
Figure 5.2 represents the oil production in cubic meter per day where y axis denotes rete of
oil produced in cubic meter per day and x axis denotes Time. From this plot, the recovery
rate of the base case producing at a primarily production rate after simulation is about 25
cubic meter per day per well and field recovery is about 50 cubic meter per day and it has an
overall recovery efficiency of 97% as it is a laboratory model.
Usually, laboratory models have high efficiency when compared to the field production data
due to less consideration of factors that affect the production. In laboratory conditions the
54
Porosity is considered as uniform across the layer and permeability is also considered as
uniform.
Figure 5.2: field oil production vs time
Figure 5.3: Residual Oil Saturation after Simulation
55
Figure 5.3 shows the residual oil saturation after simulation. The oil saturation value is
varying across the reservoir from 0.290 to 0. 601 in the figure blue colour indicates a low oil
saturation region of 0.290 and the red region indicates an oil saturation of 0.61 from this
figure we can understand that injected gas has migrated the oil around injected well. In this
picture the arrows coming upside indicates production wells and the arrows pointed towards
blocks represents injection wells.
Figure 5.4: Residual Gas Saturation
Figure 5.4 represents the residual Gas saturation after simulation. The oil saturation value is
varying across the reservoir from 0.1 to 0.3. In the figure light green colour indicates a low
gas saturation region of 0.1 and the green colour indicates a gas saturation of 0.31. From this
figure we can understand that injected gas has accumulated in the subsurface near the
injection wells and the oil that is near the injection wells are migrated towards the middle of
the reservoir and is further migrated towards the production wells further collected at the
surface.
5.2 CASE STUDY – 2

The Figure 5.5 represent 20 blocks in I direction 20 blocks J direction and 6 block in K
direction.it has a permeability of 100 md along I direction a 100 md in j direction and 100 md
in k direction and has a uniform porosity of 0.15 and initial water saturation of 0.4.
The field oil recovery efficiency plot in Figure 5.5 clearly shows the effect of Thermal
56
Injection on the overall oil recovery from the modeled reservoir over time. Figure 5.2 oil
57
production in barrel versus time, where y axis denotes rate of oil produced in cubic meter per
day and x axis denotes time. From this plot, the recovery factor of the base case producing at
a primarily production rate after simulation is about 40000 barrels per day total field recovery
over the simulated time is about 2,24,40,000 STB and it has an overall recovery efficiency of
20%.
Figure 5.5: Well Oil Production vs Time
Figure 5.6: Total oil production in Field production vs time
The field oil recovery efficiency plot in Figure 5.6 clearly shows the effect of CO2 gas
injection on the overall oil recovery from the modeled reservoir over time. In figure 5.2
represents the oil production in Barrel versus Time, where y axis denotes rete of oil produced
in cubic meter
58
per day and x axis denotes Time. From this plot, the recovery factor of the base case
producing at a primarily production rate after simulation is about 20000 barrels per day and
total field recovery over the simulated time is about 2,24,40,000 STB and it has an overall
recovery efficiency of 20%.
Figure 5.7 is residual oil Saturation plot for a simple reservoir model with a vertical well that
has 20 blocks in I direction 20 blocks J direction and 6 block in K direction.it has a
permeability of 100 md along I direction a 100 md in j direction and 100 md in k direction and
has a uniform porosity of 0.15 and initial water saturation of 0.4.
Figure 5.7: Residual oil saturation
Figure 5.7 delineates the residual oil saturation after simulation. The oil saturation value is
varying across the reservoir from 0.10 to 0. 491. Light green colour indicates a low oil
saturation region of 0.10 and the greenish yellow region indicates an oil saturation of 0.49.
From this Figure, it is understood that injected gas has migrated the oil around injected well.
The Figure 5.8 shows residual gas saturation plot for a simple reservoir model with a vertical
well that has 20 blocks in I direction 20 blocks J direction and 6 block in K direction.it has a
permeability of 100 md along I direction a 100 md in J direction and 100 md in K direction
and has a uniform porosity of 0.15 and initial water saturation of 0.4.
The oil saturation value is varying across the reservoir from 0.6 to 0.9. In the Figure 5.18,
light yellow color indicates a low gas saturation region of 0.6 and the green color indicates a
gas saturation of 0.8. from this Figure, it is understood that injected gas has accumulated in
59
the
60
subsurface and helps the oil in the subsurface to migrate towards well that helps the increase
in production.
Figure 5.8: Residual Gas saturation
5.3 CASE STUDY - 3

Results
Figure 5.9: well production rate vs Time
61
Figure 5.9 shows production rate for a complex reservoir model with a vertical wells and
deviated wells has 27 blocks in I direction 45 blocks J direction and 4 block in K direction.it
has a permeability of 100 md along I direction and 100 md in j direction and 25 md in k
direction and has a differential porosity and initial water saturation of 0.4.
in cubic meter per day and x axis denotes Time. From this plot, the recovery factor of the base
case producing at a primarily production rate after simulation is about 11000 barrels per day
and field recovery is about 60000 barrels per day and it has an overall recovery efficiency of
6%.
Figure 5.10: Field Production Rate vs Time
Figure 5.10 represents field production rate for a complex reservoir model with a vertical
wells and deviated wells has 27 blocks in I direction 45 blocks J direction and 4 block in K
direction.it has a permeability of 100 md along I direction and 100 md in j direction and 25
md in k direction and has a differential porosity and initial water saturation of 0.4.
62
63
in cubic meter per day and x axis denotes Time. From this plot, the recovery factor of the
base case producing at a primarily production rate after simulation is about 11000 barrels per
day and field recovery is about 60000 barrels per day and it has an overall recovery efficiency
of 4%.
Figure 5.11 shows residual oil saturation for a complex reservoir model with a vertical wells
and deviated wells has 27 blocks in I direction 45 blocks J direction and 4 block in K
direction.it has a permeability of 100 md along I direction and 100 md in j direction and 25
md in k direction and has a differential porosity and initial water saturation of 0.4.
Figure 5.11: Residual Oil Saturation
The oil saturation value is varying across the reservoir from 0.1 to 0.5.in the figure green
colour indicates a low oil saturation region of 0.10 and the greenish yellow region indicates
an oil saturation of 0.5 from this figure we can understand that injected gas has migrated the
oil around injected well.
Figure 5.12 shows the simulation conducted for 10-year period starting from 2021 January to
December 2030 with 1st year step and all the production data is interpreted in the simulator
with a step of 1 year of time.
64
Figure 5.12: Residual Gas Saturation
Figure 5.13: Cumulative field Oil Production vs Time
Figure 5.13 shows the Cumulative Field Production Data for this case study 3 from this we
can observe the oil production rate is increasing every year till 2025 its go on increasing and
after 2025 its stabilizing at 12 million STB. the That means the results are generated very
year starting from 2021,2022,2023,2024,2025,2026,2027,2028,2029,2030 on 1 of January in
this simulation the reservoir has 10 wells in which 6 of them are production wells and the
remaining 4 are injection wells. In this picture the green color indicates zero percent of gas
saturation it seems that the water has encroached in to the reservoir and yellow color indicates
a maximum gas saturation of 0.6 percent left in the reservoir. This 0.6 percent of gas contains
65
the injected
66
CO2 and gas cap gas in the reservoir. A comparison pf the superiority of the carbon injection
is presented in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Comparison of Cumulative Field Oil Production Data for Case Study
3
Cumulative Field Oil Production Cumulative Field Oil Production

Using Thermal Injection Using Water Injection
At the end of 1St year 4 x10^6 STB 1 x10^6 STB
At the end of 2nd year 8 x10^6 STB 1.6x10^6 STB
At the end of 3rd year 10 x10^6 STB 1.6x10^6 STB
At the end of 4rd year 11 x10^6 STB 1.6 x10^6 STB
Figure 5.14: Cumulative field Oil Production vs Time for water flooding
Figure 5.14 represents cumulative Field Oil production when Water flood is used. This result
is taken from Web Reference 81 which is simulated in IMEX Simulator by Abiham Pollak, in
her series of videos for Simulation of Water flood in IMEX simulator the same data which is
used to simulated case 3 is used their to simulate water flood operations. The results are
compared in Table 5.1, which clearly shows Thermal injection has better production rates.
The estimation of reservoir original oil in place from the modelled reservoir properties like
porosity, reservoir volume (area and depth) and residual oil saturation using Equation 5.1
shows that at initial saturations, the reservoir of interest is saturated with hydrocarbon oil with
original oil in place
67
Where: A=Area of reservoir; ϕ =Porosity; h = Depth of reservoir; Soi = oil saturation,
Original Oil in Place for Case Study - 1: 285, 123 m3; Case Study - 2: 42,805,600 Bbl.
Case Study - 3: 360,331,000 Bbl.
EFFECT OF THERMAL INJECTION ON OVERALL OIL RECOVERY

Case Study - 1: -The field oil recovery efficiency plot in Figure 5.1 clearly shows the effect
of Thermal injection on the overall oil recovery from the modelled reservoir over time. From
this plot, the recovery factor of the base case producing at a primarily production rate after
simulation is about 25 cubic meter per day and field recovery is about 50 cubic meter per day
cumulative oil production is about 55446 cubic meter and it has an overall recovery
efficiency of 20% and cumulative oil produced is as it is a laboratory model.
Case Study - 2: The field oil recovery efficiency plot in Figure 5.5 clearly shows the effect of
Thermal injection on the overall oil recovery from the modelled reservoir over time. From
simulation is about 20000 barrels per day and field recovery is about 50000 barrels per day
cumulative oil production is about 6700600 barrels and it has an overall recovery efficiency
of 16%.
Case Study - 3: The field oil recovery efficiency plot in Figure 4.1 clearly shows the effect of
Thermal injection on the overall oil recovery from the modelled reservoir over time. From
simulation is about 20000 barrels per day and field recovery is about 50000 barrels per day,
cumulative oil production is 12936500 barrels and it has an overall recovery efficiency of 4%.
The overall recovery after a successful Thermal injection is based on the several factors such
as reservoir fluid composition, original oil in place, chemical composition of injected fluid.in
this three cases we can observe that the reservoirs with high percentile of light hydrocarbons
are more preferable for Thermal injection. Despite of high volume of injected the recovered
oil is increasing in addition to that we can reduce oil percentage in the atmosphere. The oil
recovery by using Thermal injection as tertiary recovery is totally different from reservoir to
reservoir but reservoirs having a good permeability are suitable for Thermal injection.
68
6. ANALYSIS
The steam flooding data set is collected three reservoir parameters were selected for data analysis,
including one categorical feature and numerical features. The categorical feature is the formation type,
and the numerical features are porosity, permeability, depth, viscosity, API gravity, temperature, and oil
saturation before steam flooding. The reason for selecting these properties to build up our data set is
because they are the main reservoir properties that could describe reservoirs, and these properties are
commonly used for EOR projects data analysis. In order to reveal the characteristics of each cluster,
descriptive statistics approach comes to the stage for data analysis. Correlation coefficient are used to
study the relationships among reservoir properties; statistical graphics, like box plots and bar charts are
generated to know the property ranges; and descriptive statistical summaries are used to show the
statistical results. Principal component algorithms are also implemented in the clustering results to
visualize the results and filter out the dominating reservoir properties in the data sets. Mono plots are
generated to not only indicates the relationships of reservoir properties, but also presents the most
import factors in the data sets; scatter plots are used to show the relationship of projects in a 2D map.
The following subsections briefly describe these computational and visualization techniques.
The field oil recovery efficiency plot in Figure 5.1 clearly shows the effect of Thermal injection on the
overall oil recovery from the modelled reservoir over time. From this plot, the recovery factor of the
base case producing at a primarily production rate after simulation is about 25 cubic meter per day and
field recovery is about 50 cubic meter per day cumulative oil production is about 55446 cubic meter and
it has an overall recovery efficiency of 20% and cumulative oil produced is as it is a laboratory model.
base case producing at a primarily production rate after simulation is about 20000 barrels per day and
field recovery is about 50000 barrels per day cumulative oil production is about 6700600 barrels and it
has an overall recovery efficiency of 16%.
base case producing at a primarily production rate after simulation is about 20000 barrels per day and
field recovery is about 50000 barrels per day, cumulative oil production is 12936500 barrels and it has
an overall recovery efficiency of 4%.
The overall recovery after a successful thermal injection is based on the several factors such as reservoir
fluid composition, original oil in place, chemical composition of injected fluid.in this three cases we can
69
observe that the reservoirs with high percentile of light hydrocarbons are more preferable for thermal
injection. Despite of high volume of injected the recovered oil is increasing in addition to that we can
reduce oil percentage in the atmosphere. The oil recovery by using thermal injection as tertiary recovery
is totally different from reservoir to reservoir but reservoirs having a good permeability are suitable for
thermal injection.
The three dominating reservoir parameters are still permeability, depth and viscosity, which are the
same as what we got from the steam flooding projects. In this mono plot, the length of these three
reservoir parameter vectors is almost the same. However, the relationships indicated in this plot are
different. In the whole EOR projects, permeability is a little bit correlated with the viscosity, and depth
is negatively correlated with permeability and viscosity, respectively the rest of the reservoir parameters
(gravity, porosity, temperature, oil saturation start, and oil saturation end) have way less importance
compared with the three parameters depicted before. The reason for this might be the unimportant
parameters are more dependent with permeability, depth, and viscosity, while permeability, depth, and
viscosity are the three attributes that are more likely to be independent to other reservoir parameters and
they are more representative. Meanwhile, the three main attributes have less missing values in the data
set, which indicates that they have higher data quality.
70
7. CONCLUSIONS
In this project work, a study on evaluation of thermal injection in enhanced oil recovery is
presented using CMG STARS software. The theory and concepts of the thermal injection and its
operation are well discussed through figures and equations.
A thorough literature survey on research of the topics such as recover techniques, primary
techniques, secondary recovery techniques and Tertiary or EOR techniques. Main drive
mechanism, reservoir conditions and conventional thermal methods of heavy oil recovery such as
steam flooding, cyclic steam injection, in situ combustions and SAGD.
In situ combustion has proven successful for both heavy and light oils but is generally favored for
viscous, low gravity crudes, since they assure the coke necessary for the combustion process.
Combustion techniques give the fairly high recovery rates. The acceptance of the process has
been slow, actually decling in use during the before stagnating at its present levels. Both
economic and operational problems have contributed to this lack of interest.
Steam flooding oil recovery is the most widely accepted and power and proven EOR technique,
but economically feasible only as long as the net value of the oil produced exceeds the cost
production. In addition to the fuel costs and other aspects of production are costly, including well
completions, capital and operating cost for steam generation produced fluids. The large quantity
of fresh water required puts additional constraints on the potential of this process. The many
advantages of this process should allow continued development of this method, at least in the
near future. The Recovery rates of 45-50% of Oil In Place (OOIP) for this process mean that can
be expected to recover at least several billion barrels of additional oil in the years to come.
To obtain the thermal injection rate for achieving the maximum oil production, all wells
undertaken as 3 case studies had been done by CMG STARS program. Obtaining the thermal
injection rate is important because excessive thermal injection rate reduces and oil production
rate increases operation cost reduces.
All available well test data including current well test data given in the case studies had been
considered for quality checking. Since the reservoir parameter is continuously changing from
inception of production, current well test data was the focus for quality checking of well test data.
In this work, it was found that current well test data for all wells had been matched with
71
calculated data in CMG STARS. It is recommended to use an accurate well test data in order to
obtain a proper well model. This is essential to demonstrate a real behavior of the well and thus
an analysis can be performed successfully.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
The heavy oil reservoirs are currently mainly targeted by thermal enhanced oil
recovery technologies, particularly, steam flooding. Steam flooding is carried out by introducing
heat into the reservoir to unlock the recovery of heavy oil by reducing oil viscosity. Several
investigations were carried out to improve oil recovery by steam flooding. Most recently, high
steam flooding is reported as an effective approach to improve recovery in high pressure heavy
oil reservoirs. The oil recovery from steam flooding is substantially affected by the steam
quality and injection temperature. In this study, an attempt was made to look into the integration
of parameters, i.e. steam quality and injection temperature upon steam flooding on oil recovery
by using a simulation approach via CMG STARS. The results obtained indicated that high
temperature along with the moderate value of steam quality gives the best result regarding oil
recovery for steam flooding in an economical way.
 The steam injection temperature plays a dominant role in the activation of recovery
mechanisms into the reservoirs. At high temperature, there is an increase in field oil
production rate and total field oil production which represent the result of earlier
activation of recovery mechanisms. Results show that temperature variation has a minor
effect on the performance of steam flooding of particular low quality. On the other hand,
low and moderate temperatures have a similar effect, whereas significant recovery was
obtained at high temperatures. With high-quality steam, the temperature is directly
boosting up the recovery but not as much as that obtained with steam of low and
moderate quality. At high temperature and with moderate-quality steam, physical
displacement seems to be efficient; while at high temperature and with high-quality
steam, the displacement seems less efficient, proving that it is a poor injection scheme.
The temperature does not affect the water cut and steam breakthrough on an operational
scale.
 High-quality steam flooding is an effective method to improve the recovery of high-
pressure heavy oil reservoir. In this study, the aim is to select a steam of a certain quality
for a cost-effective steam flooding. At low and moderate temperature, recovery is
decreasing with the increase in steam quality, while no trend of steam quality at high
temperature. This finding is not aligned with the increase in the steam quality
72
and injection rate for optimum flooding performance that could be due to the effect of
temperature. On the other hand, steam quality of moderate level shows best result at high
temperature. This is due to the process of viscosity reduction and physical displacement
of oil. With high-quality steam and high temperature, viscous fingering and steam
override exist because of high viscosity contrasts which cause poor sweep efficiency
resulting in less oil production.
 Oil production rate is increased because of the injection pressure, that is controlled by
the bottom hole pressure, starts increasing the reservoir pressure. When the reservoir
pressure reaches the value of injection pressure, oil production starts to decrease but not
at a greater extent. After this reduction, the discontinuity in production is due to viscous
fingering. For optimum case of moderate steam quality and high temperature, the oil
production rate increases more than other cases, but it also decreases earlier after
achieving reservoir pressure.
 In recent years, most scholars have extensively studied the corrosion behavior of steel in
high-temperature water (steam and supercritical water). Corrosive substances, such as
CO2, SO2, and O2, usually exist in steam. Therefore, those corrosive materials in direct
contact with steam inevitably undergo uniform and localized corrosion. The operating
temperature, pressure, flow velocity, and pH value in the steam injection pipeline are all
parameters affecting corrosion. As a general rule, increasing temperature and decreasing
pH value will accelerate corrosion. However, at high temperatures, the compactness of
corrosion product film changes. Some scholars have found that the corrosion rate
changes with temperature in a parabolic rule. When the temperature is within a certain
range, the corrosion rate decreases with increasing temperature.
73
9. REFERENCES
1.
Atia, A. (2016). Modeling and simulation of coupling enhanced Oil/Gas recovery with
CO2 injection (Doctoral dissertation, Université M'Hamed Bougara: Faculté des sciences
de l'ingénieur).
2.
Audigane, P., Gaus, I., Czernichowski, L.I., Pruess, K., Xu, T.: Two-dimensional reactive
transport modeling of CO2 injection in a saline aquifer at the sleipner site, North Sea. Am.
J. Sci. 307(7), 974–1008 (2007).
3.
Bhatti, A. A., Raza, A., Mahmood, S. M., & Gholami, R. (2019). Assessing the
application of miscible CO 2 flooding in oil reservoirs: a case study from Pakistan.
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 9(1), 685-701.
4.
Buza, John Walter. "An Overview of Heavy and Extra Heavy Oil Carbonate Reservoirs
in the Middle East." Paper presented at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2008.
5.
Carroll, J. J. (2019). Acid Gas Injection: Days of Future Passed. The Three Sisters: Acid
Gas Injection, Carbon Capture and Sequestration, and Enhanced Oil Recovery, 29-37.
6.
CMG-GEM. Advanced Compositional and Unconventional Reservoir Simulator. Version
2012 User’s Guide.Computer Modeling Group Ltd., Calgary, Alberta.
7.
CMG-WinProp. Phase-Behaviour and Fluid Property Program. Version 2012 User’s
Guide. Computer Modeling Group Ltd., Calgary, Alberta.
8.
Condor, J., Suebsiri, J., Wilson, M., and Asghari, K. (2010). Carbon Footprint and
Principle of Additionality in CO2-EOR Projects: The Weyburn Case. SPE paper 138885,
presented at the SPE Latin American &Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conferences
held in Lima, Peru, 1-3 December 2010.
9.
El-Hoshoudy, A. N., & Desouky, S. (2018). CO 2 miscible flooding for enhanced oil
recovery. Carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, 79.
10.
Fath, A. H., & Pouranfard, A. R. (2014). Evaluation of miscible and immiscible CO2
injection in one of the Iranian oil fields. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum, 23(3), 255-270.
11.
Flett, M., Gurton, R., & Weir, G. (2007). Heterogeneous saline formations for carbon
dioxide disposal: Impact of varying heterogeneity on containment and trapping. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 57(1-2), 106-118.
12.
Ferguson, R. C., (2009) Nichols, C., Van Leeuwen, T., & Kuuskraa, V. A. (2009).
Storing CO2 with enhanced oil recovery. Energy Procedia, 1(1), 1989-1996.
13.
Gaviria Garcia, R. (2006). Reservoir simulation of CO2 sequestration and enhanced oil
recovery in Tensleep Formation, Teapot Dome field (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M
University).
74
14.
Guo, B. (2011). Petroleum production engineering, a computer-assisted approach. Elsevier.
75
15.
Hovorka, Susan D., et al. "Measuring permanence of CO2 storage in saline formations:
The Frio experiment." Environmental Geosciences 13.2 (2006): 105-121.
16.
Jacoby, R. H. (1984). Phase Behavior of Heavy Oils with Application to Reservoir
Recovery Processes. In Heavy Crude Oil Recovery (pp. 1-47). Springer, Dordrecht.
17.
Juanes, R., Spiteri, E. J., Orr Jr, F. M., & Blunt, M. J. (2006). Impact of relative
permeability hysteresis on geological CO2 storage. Water resources research, 42(12).
18.
Kamali, F., & Cinar, Y. (2014). Co-optimizing enhanced oil recovery and CO 2 storage by
simultaneous water and CO2 injection, Energy exploration & exploitation, 32(2), 281-300.
19.
Karim, Fatma, Berzins, (1992) T.V., Schenewerk, P.A., Bassiouni, Z.A., and J.M.
Wolcott. "Light Oil Recovery from Cyclic CO2 Injection: Influence of Drive Gas, CO2
Injection Rate, and Reservoir Dip." Paper presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting, Casper.
20.
Khan, C., Ge, L., & Rudolph, V. (2015). Reservoir simulation study for CO 2 sequestration
in saline aquifers. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 5(4), 30-45.
21.
Kumar, A. (2005)., Ozah, R., Noh, M., Pope, G. A., Bryant, S., Sepehrnoori, K., & Lake,
L. W. (2005). Reservoir simulation of CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers. Spe
Journal, 10(03), 336-348.
22.
Lake, Larry W. “Enhanced Oil Recovery”, published by Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall, 1989.
23.
Latil, M. (1980). Enhanced oil recovery. Editions Technip.
24.
Mathiassen, O. M. (2003). CO2 as injection gas for enhanced oil recovery and estimation
of the potential on the Norwegian continental shelf. Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU), Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics,
Trondheim/Stavanger.
25.
Meyer, James P. "Summary of carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2 EOR) injection
well technology." American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC (2007).
26.
Mohammed Yussof, Sarah Adiba, "Simulation of CO2 Injection in Gas Reservoir Using
ECLIPSE”, volume 34, issue 1, 2013.
27.
Mohd Salleh, M. N, Abdullah, N., Hasan, N. The implementation of Water Alternating
(WAG) injection to obtain optimum recovery in Cornea Field, Australia. J Petrol Explor
Prod Technol 11, pp.1475–1485,2021.
28.
Mousavifar, A. M., Kharrat, R., & Parchizedeh, A. (2012). Comparison between EOR
methods (gas Injection, water injection and WAG processes) in one of Iranian Fractured
oil reservoirs. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res, 3(4), 503-507.
29.
Nghiem, L., Sammon, P., Grabenstetter, J., and Ohkuma., H. (2004). Modelling CO 2
storage in Aquifers with a fully-coupled geochemical EOS compositional simulator. SPE
paper 89474; presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 17-21 April 2004.
76
30.
Orr Jr, F. M., & Taber, J. J. (1984). Use of carbon dioxide in enhanced oil
recovery. Science, 224(4649), 563-569.
31.
Ozah, R. C., Lakshminarasimhan, S., Pope, G. A., Sepehrnoori, K., & Bryant, S. L.
(2005, October). Numerical simulation of the storage of pure CO 2 and CO2-H2S gas
mixtures in deep saline aquifers. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
OnePetro.
32.
Pal, S., Mushtaq, M., Banat, F., & Al Sumaiti, A. M. (2018). Review of surfactant-
assisted chemical enhanced oil recovery for carbonate reservoirs: challenges and future
perspectives. Petroleum Science, 15(1), 77-102.
33.
Patil, Santosh Bramhadev. "Investigation of CO₂ sequestration options for Alaskan North
Slope with emphasis on enhanced oil recovery." PhD Dissertation., University of Alaska
Fairbanks, 2006.
34.
Peng, Y., and Robinson, B. (1976). A New Two-Constant Equation of State. Industrial
&Engineering Chemistry Fundamental, 15(1), pp 59-64.
35.
Pruess, K and Xu, T. (2007). Two-diminetional reactive transport modelling of CO2
injection in a saline aquifer at the Sleipner site North Sea. American Journal of science,
307(7) 9744-1008.
36.
Riazi, M., Sohrabi, M., & Jamiolahmady, M. (2011). Experimental study of pore-scale
mechanisms of carbonated water injection. Transport in porous media, 86(1), 73-86.
37.
Schetz, J A and Fuhs,"Fundamentals of fluid mechnics", John Wiley and sons, 1999.
38.
Shaw, J.C., and S. Bachu. "CO Flooding Performance Prediction for Alberta Oil Pools."
Paper presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
June 2002.
39.
Sohrabi, M., Riazi, M., Jamiolahmady, M., Kechut, N. I., Ireland, S., & Robertson, G.
“Carbonated water injection (CWI)–A productive way of using CO 2 for oil recovery and
CO2 storage”, Energy Procedia, volume 4, pp. 2192-2199, 2011.
40.
Sifuentes Walter Fernando,Marie Ann Giddins, Martin Julian Blunt,"Modeling CO2
Storage in Aquifers: Assessing the key contributors to uncertainty",SPE Offshore Europe
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 2009.
41.
Stalkup F.I.," Miscible displacement ", publisher by journal of petroleum technology,
volume 35(04), pp. 815 - 826, 1983.
42.
Vasilikou, F. (2014). Modeling CO2 Sequestration and Enhanced Gas Recovery in
Complex Unconventional Reservoirs (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).
43.
Verma, M.K.," Fundamentals of carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery (CO 2-EOR): A
supporting document of the assessment methodology for hydrocarbon recovery using
CO2- EOR associated with carbon sequestration". Washington, DC: US Department of the
Interior, US Geological Survey,2015.
77
44.
Willhite, G. P., & Green, D. W. (1998). Enhanced oil recovery, Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
45.
Yeap, W. J. (2018). Study of EOR- CO2 Miscible Flooding Performance Using
Compositional Reservoir Simulation with Local Grid Refinement (Doctoral dissertation),
University.
46.
Yu, Wei, Al-Shalabi, Emad W., and Kamy Sepehrnoori. "A Sensitivity Study of Potential
CO2 Injection for Enhanced Gas Recovery in Barnett Shale Reservoirs." Paper presented
at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, April
2014.
47.
Zivar, D., & Pourafshary, P. (2019). A new approach for predicting oil recovery factor
during immiscible CO2 flooding in sandstones using dimensionless numbers. Journal of
Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 9(3), 2325-2332.
78

Evaluation of Thermal Injection in Enhanced Oil Recovery

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Thermal Injection in Enhanced Oil Recovery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVALUATION OF THERMAL INJECTION IN ENHANCED OIL

DASARI GANESH NAIDU, B. Tech. (Mechanical)

Under the Guidance and Supervision of

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING AND

I, D GANESH NAIDU, hereby declare that my project report entitled “Evaluation of

Place: KAKINADA D. GANESH NAIDU

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING AND

This is to certify that the project work entitled “EVALUATION OF THERMAL

Shri. S.K.S. CHARYULU Dr. K. Krishna Bhaskar

I acknowledge my sincere thanks to Shri. S.K.S CHARYULU, Academic Advisor and

My deep gratitude to Dr. K. Krishna Bhaskar, Head of the Department, Department of

I am highly thankful to Dr. M.H.M. Krishna Prasad, Principal, University college of

Krw Relative Permeability of Water

Krow Relative Permeability of Oil

N Number of Components in the Mixture

OOIP Original Oil in Place

Soi Initial Oil Saturation

R Universal Gas Constant

Vcorr Corrected Molar Volume

Figure 1.1: Typical Reservoir Life Cycle

1.1 RECOVERY TECHNIQUES:

1.1.1. Primary Recovery Techniques

1.1.2. Secondary Recovery Techniques

1.1.3. Tertiary Recovery Operations

1.2. EOR/TERTIARY RECOVERY TECHNIQUES

In-situ Electrical beam

N2 Flooding VAPEX SAGP

The classification of enhanced oil recovery method

In-Situ Sandstone with high porosity >50 <3833 >60

1.2.2 Thermal Recovery

1.2.3 Chemical Injection

Figure 1.2: Types of Injections

Table-1.2: EOR screening criteria for conventional reservoir

Figure-1.3: Main drive mechanisms in fractured reservoirs

1.4. CONVENTIONAL THERMAL METHODS OF HEAVY OIL RECOVERY:

1.4.1 Cyclic Steam Injection:

1.4.2. Continuous steam injection

Figure-1.4.3: Steam injection scheme taking account gravity.

1.4.3 Steam injection technology:

Figure-1.4.4: Steam flooding

• Poor vertical sweep due to gravity override and reservoir heterogeneities

Figure-1.4.7: Effect of fracture intensity on oil recovery of steam

Figure-1.4.8: THAI Recovery Process.

1.4.6 Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD)

Figure-1.4.9: Illustration of the steam chamber cross-section in SAGD

2.1. Critical review

Figure 2.1: Viscosity vs. Temperature

2.2 Steam properties

Change in enthalpy is very useful and it is defined as:

Figure 2.2: saturation steam temperature vs. saturated steam pressure

Figure 2.3: Temperature vs Radial distance

2.4.1 Cyclic Steam Stimulation

2.4.2 Steam flooding

It is called Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage. Jiang, Q. et al. (2009) mentioned that it is

 The pay zone must be greater than 40 feet.

3.1. RESERVOIR MODELLING

3.1.2. Reservoir Simulation

Figure 3.1: Flowchart of Reservoir Simulation

3.2. COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LTD. - CMG

Operating Procedure of BUILDER 2015.10

3.2.2. Reservoir Description

Figure 3.2: Flowchart for CMG STARS Simulator