SPE 107372
SPE 107372
Heavy-Oil Recovery Mechanisms During Steam Injection in Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs
Mateo Hernandez J.A., SPE, and Trevisan, O.V., SPE, U. Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 15–18 April 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The present work addresses the contributions, in both
individual and combined forms, of the driving mechanisms,
namely, solution gas, CO2 generation, steam distillation,
capillary imbibition and gravitational drainage, for the
recovery of oil and gas during the continuous steamflooding of
a naturally fractured reservoir containing heavy oil. The
investigation is carried out via numerical simulation of the
phenomena in representative pattern cells.
Two numerical models were used to represent the matrix
heating process. The first describes the heating of a horizontal
cross-section of a matrix block surrounded by a fracture, in
which the steam is steadily flooding. The second model is
similar to the first, except for the position, which is changed to
vertical to incorporate gravity effects.
The studies were performed for a fractured rock saturated
with live oil. The rock properties are representative of a real
fractured carbonate reservoir, as well as the fluid properties
referring to the same field case. Also, the operational
conditions used for pressure and temperature were the ones
observed in the field, conferring to the work and conclusions,
the character of a case study. A strategy was adopted to isolate
the effects of each recovery mechanism.
The results show that the main mechanisms of oil recovery
for the matrix block during steamflooding are the integrated
action of steam distillation and solution gas. The first is the
dominant mechanism and it is responsible for the quality
improvement of the produced oil. The other mechanisms have
a minor contribution to ultimate oil recovery. Such results are
vital for the design of a steam injection project in similar oil
fields.
Introduction
Before the 80`s, it was believed that steamflooding of a
naturally fractured reservoir (NFR) could deviate the oil
through the fractures. Consequently, the oil would not be
recovered. However, the results of simulation runs and field
tests, published in literature since the beginning of the
eighties, have shown the economic potential of the use of
steam for the recovery of heavy oil in NFR. For the better
understanding of the physics involved so as to realize the
proper capabilities of the method, it is extremely important to
study the main recovery mechanisms such as: reduction of
viscosity; thermal expansion; distillation; capillary imbibition;
solution gas; generation of CO2; and gravitational drainage; as
pointed out in Reis' work1 in 1990.
Research efforts on the recovery mechanisms of heavy oil
in NFRs during continuous steamflooding are relatively
recent, although the basic principles on which the process is
based has been under scrutiny since 1961. That year,
steamflooding cores, Wilman and co-workers2 demonstrated
the existence of the mechanisms of viscosity reduction;
thermal expansion; and distillation. In 1962, Mattax and Kyte3
developed capillary imbibition studies in small cores from
water wetting reservoirs and they showed that the water inside
the fracture can be absorbed spontaneously by the matrix,
through small pores. In 1969, for a continuous steam injection
field project, DeHann and Van Lookeren4 reported the action
of the gas solution mechanism, which occurs because of the
release of the gas dissolved in the oil due to the temperature
increase. In 1970, Kyte5 reported, after a numerical simulation
study, that gravitational drainage is as important a mechanism
as capillary imbibition. In 1982, Sahuquet and Ferrier6
observed the generation of CO2 during a field test of a
fractured carbonate reservoir.
After the 80`s several papers were published on these
recovery mechanisms, coming from field project results,
laboratory and numerical modeling studies. In 1986, Dreher7
et al. studied the injection of hot water and steam in live oil
saturated carbonate rocks. CO2 generation, oil expansion and
viscosity reduction were the active recovery mechanisms.
Reis1 did an excellent revision and carried out laboratory
tests on the recovery process in fractured rocks, which were
taken from outcrops and saturated with dead oil (mineral oil)
and water. Thermal expansion and generation of CO2 were
2 SPE 107372
shown to be key mechanisms in the production process.
According to the author, the distillation of the light
components during the oil phase, which is positive during the
process of continuous steamflooding in non-fractured
reservoirs, does not have a significant role during the
continuous steamflooding of fractured reservoirs. Jensen and
Sharma8 carried out experimental steam and hot water
displacement studies in sandstone and fractured carbonates.
He reported that thermal expansion and reduction of viscosity
were the main recovery mechanisms in fractured carbonates.
In 1992, Briggs et al.9 presented continuous steamflooding
experimental studies of a dolomite core saturated with live oil
and water. They concluded that the main recovery
mechanisms are capillary imbibition and solution gas.
Haghighi and Yortsos10 developed experimental studies, using
a micro-model visualization technique, of continuous steam
and hot water injection for different types of live oil. The
authors observed that there were three mechanisms that were
responsible for the expulsion of the oil from the matrix:
solution gas, capillary imbibition and oil displacement by
steam, when the latter is pressure-driven into the fracture.
Several theoretical studies have also been carried out to
investigate the relative importance of the different
mechanisms. In 1992, van Wunnik and Wit11 developed a
detailed analytical model to study gravitational drainage effect
during the steam by continuous steamflooding in a reservoir
that contained heavy oil. Pooladi-Darvish et al.12 developed
analytical solutions for the heat flow and the gravitational
drainage in a matrix block surrounded by a fracture saturated
with steam. In 1987, Chen et al.13 developed a double porosity
simulator to simulate the thermal effects in fractured
reservoirs. The matrix blocks were refined to take into account
the effects of gravity; the capillary imbibition pressure; and
the of mass and energy transfer between the fracture and the
matrix.
The role of the oil recovery mechanisms in NFRs as
presented in the former considerations are discussed on the
basis of inferred results such as: displacement measurements,
field observations, visualization in micro-models and use of
double porosity simulators. In the present study, a theoretical
procedure analyzes and quantifies the performance of these
mechanisms based on numerical simulations of the
phenomena in representative pattern cells. The work addresses
the contributions, in both individual and combined forms, of
the mechanisms of solution gas drive, CO2 generation, steam
distillation, capillary imbibition and gravitational drainage, for
the recovery of oil and gas during the continuous
steamflooding of a naturally fractured reservoir containing
heavy oil.
Methodology
Two similar models are proposed to represent a pattern cell of
a NFR where the recovery mechanisms will be investigated.
Model-1 describes the heating of a symmetrical section (2-D)
of a matrix block; and Model-2, describes the heating of that
same block in the vertical direction. A procedure is presented
to evaluate the individual and collective impact of the
recovery.
Model 1
Model-1 represents a single matrix block surrounded by a
fracture and cut symmetrically by a vertical plane. Figure 1
shows the geometry of the assumed matrix-fracture unit. The
central part of the geometry (in green) of the model represents
a 3.048 m porous matrix cubic block, saturated initially with
heavy oil and connate water and surrounded by a 0.3048 m
fracture in the X, Y directions and 3.048 m in the Z direction
(in blue), where two pseudo-wellbores are located at their
extreme ends at a same depth: the injector, that has the aim of
introducing steam into the fracture; and the producer, that has
the aim of draining the fluids of the fracture. The top of the
model is located at a depth of 457.2 m and its base is located
at a depth of 460.24 m. At the top and base of the model, the
boundary conditions are of thermal insulation and
impermeability to fluid flow.
Figure 1 Geometry of the Model 1
Rock Properties
The rock in this model is a calcite (CaCO3), carrying the
following characteristics: support matrix of mudstone,
multiple porosity (primary and secondary porosity), type A
storage (the storage of fluids in the matrix is greater than in
the fracture), presence of some secondary mineralization (the
fractures are not closed due to the productive process) and
with the presence of rock inside the fractures.
The relative permeability data and capillary imbibition
pressure in the matrix used herewith are from the work by
Firoozabadi and Thomas14. The capillary pressure curve for
the matrix is determined from a combination between the
capillary (Pc) and the gravitational (PG) pressures. However,
on the other hand, the capillary pressure in the fractures is
considered to be null.
Fluid Properties
In general, the oil phase is made up of oil; methane
(dissolved in the oil) and; under proper pressure and
temperature conditions, CO2 can also appear in the phase.
SPE 107372 3

Two types of oil are considered in the study: one with
fractioned oil, where the oil component is divided into three
pseudo-components (light, medium and heavy); and the other
as a synthetic oil, where the oil component is considered to be
one single component.
The aqueous phase is made up of two components: (1) one
representing interstitial water and (2) one representing injected
water. The former represents the water that is in the model in
the initial conditions and the latter, the water that is being
injected into the model.
The gas phase is composed by the methane released from
the oil phase; the pseudo-components (light, medium and
heavy), distilled from the fractioned oil and the CO2 gas,
generated from the chemical reaction between the carbonate
and the heated water. Coefficients rrk=180 1/dia and
Ea=33029,2 kJ/kmol, presented in Cathles et al15, were used
for this reaction.
The solid phase is formed by two components: (1) one
representing the part of the rock that reacts with water due to
the temperature increase, and (2) one resulting from the
precipitation of the calcium hydroxide, a product of the
reaction between the water and the rock.
Table 1 summarizes the data used in the study regarding
simulation parameters, rock and fluid properties and
operational conditions.
individual contribution of each one and their possible
combined contributions
At the very beginning of the process( up to 5 days), note in
Figure 2 that the increase of the matrix temperature is
associated to the increase of the methane molar fraction in the
gas phase and to the reduction of oil viscosity (point A in the
matrix is the closest to the fracture). This points out that the
mechanisms of solution gas and of oil viscosity reduction
occur in combination.
After this and lasting a little longer (up to 10 days), with
the increase of the matrix temperature, the interstitial water in
the matrix vaporizes (as can be seen in Figure 2). The increase
in the molar fraction of the interstitial water in the gas phase
stimulates the oil distillation mechanism due to presence of
steam.
In the sequence, the chemical reaction between the heated
interstitial water and the rock occurs. The CO2 molar fraction
in the gas phase increases as can be seen in Figure 2,
confirming the development of CO2 generation mechanism.
Finally, when the pressure gradient in point A is lower
than the gradient caused by the capillary pressure (7 kPa), the
water in the fracture enters the matrix initiating the
mechanism of capillary imbibition.

Table 1: Data used in Model 1 7kPa

KkPa
Mesh:
2D - Cartesian 22*22*1
Block dimensions (m) 0.348*0.1524*0.348 x-direction
0.348*0.1524*0.348 y-direction
0.348 z-direction
Rock properties
Matrix Fractures
Porosity (fraction) 0. 22 0. 02
Permeability (mD) 1. 0 20000. 0
Compressibility (1/kPa) 7.25E-05 4.35 E-05
Water saturation 0.2 1.0
Oil saturation 0.8 0. 0
Thermal conductivity (J/m-s-K) 1. 564
Calorific capacity(J / m3 – K) 1.4184E+06
Initial conditions
Pressure (kPa) 12000. 0
Saturation pressure (kPa) 11941. 7 Figure 2. Order of Activation of the Recovery Mechanisms
Temperature (oC) 60. 0
Oil properties
Saturation pressure. (MPa) 12. 0
Based on six simulation runs: Study 1.1, Study 1.2, Study
Gas oil ratio 24. 0 1.3, Study 1.4, Study 1.5, and Study 1.6; a group of
Viscosity of the live oil (mPa. s) 194. 0 hypotheses is evaluated, which determines the behavior of the
Density of the live oil (kg/m3) 980. 0 included mechanisms (Table 2).
Volume factor of oil formation due to
saturation pressure (vol/vol) 1. 06
The hypotheses are:
Operational conditions 1. The mixed oil represents the oil component in the
Constant flow of steam injection (m3/s) 5 oil phase: the pseudo-components are not distilled
Quality of the steam (%) 70% and there is only the release of methane under the
Bottom pressure (kPa) 12000.0
temperature effect.
2. The oil viscosity is a function of both the
Procedure
temperature and the amount of methane dissolved
The procedure adopted for the analysis is to add one after
in the oil.
the other the mechanisms in the sequential runs, following the
3. The viscosity of the oil depends only on the
chronological order of activation, with the aim of verifying the
amount of methane dissolved in the oil.
4 SPE 107372

Table 2: Summary of Hypothesis for Model 1

Hypothesis Study1.1 Study 1.2 Study 1.3 Study 1.4 Study 1.5 Study 1.6
Synthetic oil x x x
µ= µ(P) - x
µ= µ(P. T) x - x x x
Fractioned Oil - - x x x
Water steam in the matrix - - x x x
CO2 Generation - - - x x
Pcm = 0 - - - - x
Pi = 20684 kPa - - - - x

(x)- included and (-) not included

4. The fractioned oil represents the oil component in distillation mechanism due to steam distillation. Therefore, the
the oil phase: its pseudo-components with boiling defined hypotheses for these studies are influenced by the
points lower than the operational temperature are effect of that phenomenon and only three remaining cases can
distilled and water vaporization in the matrix is be properly analyzed (Study 2.3, Study 2.4 and Study 2.5) as
allowed. they incorporate the distillation mechanism. See Table 3.
5. Water vaporization in the matrix is allowed.
6. CO2 is released due to of the chemical reaction
between the heated water and the carbonate.
7. Capillary pressures in the matrix and in the
fracture are considered to be null: the water
injected in the fracture does not enter the matrix
due to the capillary forces.
8. The initial pressure in the matrix was increased up
to 20684 kPa, so as to not allow the release of
methane during the heating process of the matrix.

Model 2
Figure 3 shows Model-2, representing a single matrix
block surrounded by a fracture and cut symmetrically by a
vertical plane. The central part (in green) of the model
represents a 3.048 m porous matrix cubic block, initially
saturated with heavy oil and connate water and surrounded by
a 0.3048 m fracture (in blue) in the X. and Z directions and by
3.048 m in the Y direction. Two pseudo-wellbores are at the Figure 3 Geometry of Model 2
top and the base of the model: the injector is at the base and
the producer at the top. The top of the model is located at a
457.2 m depth and its base is at a 460.9 m depth. The
boundary conditions at the top and the base of the model are Table 3: Summary of the Hypothesis Suggested for
of thermal insulation and impermeability to the fluid flow. Model 2
The simulation runs carried out on Model-2 used the same
rock; fluid and rock-fluid interaction properties; and the same
initial and operational conditions, as the ones used in the runs Hypothesis Study 2.3 Study 2.4 Study 2.5
on Model-1 (Table 1). Synthetic oil
Procedure µ= µ(P)
The analysis procedure used for Model-2 is also based on µ= µ(P. T) x x x
the order of appearance of the mechanisms presented for Fractioned Oil x x x
Model-1. However, the hypotheses used in the evaluation of Water steam in the matrix x x x
the mechanisms in Studies 1.1 and 1.2 cannot be applied to
CO2 Generation - x x
this model. Steam located in the fracture enters the matrix,
Pcm = 0 - - x
because of the height difference between the matrix and the
fracture, and immediately causes the development of the Gravity x x x
SPE 107372
Results and Discussion
Study 1.1 - Solution Gas and Reduction of Viscosity
In order to understand these mechanisms, Figure 4
highlights the test results of the volume reduction dynamics of
the in situ gas and oil, when the mechanisms of solution gas
and viscosity reduction are activated. When steam is injected
into the fracture, heat is transferred by conduction towards the
center of the matrix causing the expansion of the liquids and
solids and the reduction of the oil viscosity. The expansions
are responsible for the pressure increase inside the matrix and
the viscosity reduction is responsible for facilitating the
movement of the fluids. Therefore, fluids are expelled from
the matrix to the fracture.
Figure 4. Oil and Gas Recovery Factor
The key parameters for the understanding of these
mechanisms are: matrix average pressure, flow rate of
methane and production rate of mixed oil. The behaviors of
these parameters are depicted in Fig.5.
Figure 5. Pressure, temperature and production rates
5
In order to analyze the behavior of the average pressure in
the matrix, three cells of the matrix were selected as points A,
B, and C (see Figure 1). The graphs of Figure 6 show the
behavior of the pressure in those selected points for a matrix
heating period of 100 days. Four important aspects of the
pressure behavior with increasing temperatures can be
highlighted here: (1) the time period for the pressure growth to
a maximum value; (2) the time period for the pressure decline
from the maximum value to the injection pressure level; (3)
the increase of the amplitude of the pressure wave and (4) the
increase of the length of the wave towards the center of the
block.
At the beginning, during the growth of the pressure wave,
the average pressure in the matrix raises as the temperature
increases. Due to the heating of the matrix, there is a
continuous release of the gas dissolved in the oil. However,
the volume of fluids displaced by this release is larger than the
volume of the ones leaving the matrix. Thus, the increase in
the volume of the remaining fluids is responsible for the
increase of the matrix average pressure. As a consequence, the
maximum pressure in the matrix is reached when the volume
of the displaced fluids equals the volume of the produced
fluids.
After that, the decline of the matrix average pressure
occurs, despite the increase of its average temperature. This
decline is caused by the depletion of the gas released from the
oil (the volume of fluids moved by expansion is smaller than
the volume of fluids produced) and it finishes at the level of
the injection pressure in the fracture.
The increase in amplitude of the pressure wave towards the
center of the model is a result of the displacement, in that
direction, of the oil and the released gas for the neighboring
blocks during the pressure growth period. Figure 7 pictures
how this displacement takes place, five days after steam
injection started in the fracture. Pressure at point D is greater
than in the fracture and greater than at point E. The local
pressure at point D drives the displacement of the live oil in
both directions (towards points C and E). The arrows in Figure
7 show the direction of the local oil flow velocity.
Figure 6. Pressure History inside the Matrix
6 SPE 107372

accelerates both recoveries of gas and oil from the matrix

recovery, as can be seen in Figure 9.

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0

0,0
PRODUTOR

12.847

-1,0

-1,0
12.764

12.680

12.597

12.514

-2,0

-2,0
12.430

12.347

12.264

-3,0

-3,0
12.180

12.097
INJETOR
Figure 7. Pressure Distribution and Oil Flow after Five Days 12.014
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0

The displacement of live oil in the two directions finishes

when the maximum pressure value is reached in the block. At Figure 8. Pressure Distribution and Oil Flow at Maximum Average
Pressure
that moment, the oil and gas flow is only driven towards the
fracture. Figure 8 shows the pressure distribution in the model
and the oil flux directions when the average pressure reaches
its maximum value.
The increase of the pressure wave length towards the
center of the matrix is due to the increase of the drainage area
which consequently causes a larger volume of fluids to
participate in the flow process.
It can be observed in Figure 5 that the behavior of the
methane production rate exhibits a rapid growth until a
maximum value, followed by a sharp drop. The pressure
increase in the matrix, due to the release of the gas dissolved
in the oil, expels the gas to the fracture. At the beginning, the
released gas is produced, after overcoming its critical
saturation, at a rate directly associated to matrix pressure,
which is linked to the increase of the temperature in the Figure 9. Effect of Viscosity on Recovery Factor
matrix. After reaching a maximum value, given by the
thermodynamic equilibrium conditions of the mixture (mixed Figure 10 shows that when viscosity does not depend on
oil and methane), the methane begins to deplete and its temperature, the average pressure in the matrix is larger than
flowrate lessens along with the matrix pressure. when viscosity does depend on temperature. As larger is the
The oil flux in the matrix is closely related to the amount time period taken for the overpressure to dissipate. The
of gas released. At first, the oil flow is even helped by the increase in the viscosity of the oil hinders its displacement.
effect of the critical gas saturation. Oil flowrate reaches its Methane expansion has to generate a greater pressure to
maximum value at the same time as the gas flowrate. From displace the oil and the pressure in the matrix increases.
that moment on, oil production drops, as does the release of On the other hand, the increase in the viscosity of the oil
dissolved gas. Figure 5 shows the behavior of oil flow during decreases its flow velocity. For the gas flow, the oil viscosity
the matrix heating period. increase reduces the flowrate (see the behavior of the gas
While significant amounts of gas and oil can be produced production rate on the inset shown in Figure 10).The pressure
while the solution gas mechanism is working, their flows are increase in the matrix for the displacement of a more viscous
influenced by oil viscosity. oil reduces the volume of the gas released from the oil Due to
this, the flowrate of methane decreases and its recovery is
Study 1.2 Solution Gas without Viscosity Reduction postponed.
It is well established that temperature has a strong effect Figure 9 also shows that for times greater than 1000 days,
on viscosity of liquids and that viscosity reduction is an the effect of the reduction of the oil viscosity disappears. The
important mechanism for the recovery of oil. Along with the pressure gradient generated in Study 1.2 displaces an oil
solution gas mechanism, the reduction of the oil viscosity volume similar to that displaced in Study 1.1. Therefore, the
SPE 107372 7

effect of the temperature on the reduction of viscosity only

causes anticipation in the recovery of the matrix oil.

Figure 11. Oil and Gas Recovery Factor for Studies 1.1 and 1.3

Figure 10. Evolution of Average Pressure, Oil and Gas Production

Rates

Study 1.3 Solution Gas, Viscosity Reduction and Steam

Distillation.
Figure 11 shows the great contribution to the recovery of
gas and of oil from the matrix when the distillation mechanism
is introduced. Distillation is the separation method based on
the liquid-vapor equilibrium of mixtures. In practical terms,
when there are two or more pure substances in a liquid
mixture, distillation can be an appropriate method for
separation: They merely need to have reasonably different
volatilities.
Steam distillation can be an important mechanism of
recovery of matrix gas and oil if operational conditions work Figure 12. Average Pressure,Methane and Oil Production Rates
towards the development of water vaporization inside the for Studies 1.1 and 1.3
matrix.
Steam distillation takes place during the heating of two On the other hand, Figure 12 highlights the significant
immiscible substances: here, water and fractioned oil. As per reduction in the matrix average pressure of Study 1.3,
Dalton’s law, the total steam pressure from a two phase compared to Study 1.1. The phase change from liquid to gas of
mixture is equal to the sum of the partial pressure of the i the methane component and of the light and medium pseudo-
individual pure components: components causes a significant decrease in their mobility.
Thus, the necessary pressure for their displacement is smaller.
0 0 0 0 0 0 It can be seen in Equation (1), that the mixture vapor
P mixture = P C 1 + P water + P light + P average + P
heavy
(1) pressure does not depend on the molar fractions of the
components. In other words, if this pressure is maintained
above the operational pressure all the oil phase components
Due to the operational conditions established in this study,
the matrix pressure is lower than the mixture vapor pressure. can be distilled and the transition to the gas phase depends
exclusively on the magnitude of the partial pressure of each
Thus, in order to reach thermodynamic equilibrium between
both pressures, the partial pressures of the involved component (the higher the partial pressure, the larger the
molecular yield to the gas phase and vice-versa).
components decrease. And consequently, it increases the
In this study, the mixture vapor pressure, at the beginning,
molecular yield of the liquid phase to the gas phase. As
is at its maximum and it is kept constant until all the methane
depicted in Figure 12, the gas and oil flowrates of Study 1.3
is distilled. After that, it drops and remains constant until the
are greater than those of Study 1.1.
light pseudo-component is totally distilled and soon after that
it falls and continues constant until the depletion of the
medium pseudo-component. At that moment, the mixture
8 SPE 107372

vapor pressure is less than the pressure in the matrix.
Consequently, the heavy pseudo-component cannot be
distilled. In this way, the quality of the produced oil is
enriched significantly, as the light and average pseudo-
components yielded a greater number of molecules than the
heavy pseudo-component.
Table 4 also confirms the improvement in the quality of
the produced oil. Here, the main properties of the original
dead oil are compared with the produced oil. A significant
decrease of the heavy component participation in the
composition of the mixture can be seen, as well as, its effect
on the decrease of the molecular weight and of the specific
gravity of the produced oil.

Table 4. Oil Properties before and after Steamflooding

Before Steamflooding After Steamflooding

Molecular Weight Specific Molar Molecular Weight Specific
Component Molar Fraction
(gmol/mol) Gravity Fraction (gmol/mol) Gravity
Light 0. 43 112. 18 0. 74 0. 39 112. 18 0. 74
Average 0. 30 166. 63 0. 86 0. 60 166. 63 0. 86
Heavy 0. 27 1788. 70 1. 53 0. 01 1788. 70 1. 53
Mixed 1. 00 574. 04 0. 99 1. 00 165. 08 0. 82

Study 1.4. Solution Gas, Viscosity Reduction, Steam

Distillation and CO2 Generation
Figure 13 shows that the addition of the CO2 generation
mechanism to the set of mechanisms studied to this point
discreetly accelerates the recovery of matrix gas and oil.
However, the ultimate oil recovery does not benefit from it.
Due to the appearance of CO2, the mixture vapor pressure
increases and Equation 1 becomes:

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P mixture = P C 1 + P CO + P water + P light + P average + P heavy
2
(2)

Thus, all components contribute with larger numbers of

molecules in order to reach thermodynamic equilibrium, the
gas flowrate is superior and the pressure in the matrix is
slightly lower (larger amounts of fluids are expelled from the Figure 14. Average Pressure and Component Production Rates
matrix) than what was observed in Study 1.3 (Figure 14). for Studies 1.4 and 1.3

On the other hand, even with the presence of CO2 in the

mixture, significant volumes of heavy pseudo-component are
not distilled. Due to this, the final recovery of the heavy
pseudo-component is not favored and neither is the ultimate
oil recovery.
During the generation of CO2, the swelling effect of the oil,
because of the dissolution of CO2 in it, is insignificant. At high
temperatures, the solubility of the gases in the liquids is very
low. Therefore, CO2 does not have a relevant contribution
towards the oil swelling and consequently relevant oil
volumes are not expelled by this means.

Study 1.5 Solution Gas, Viscosity Reduction, Steam

Figure 13. Oil and Gas Recovery Factor for Studies 1.4 and 1.3
Distillation, CO2 Generation and Capillary imbibition.
The performance of the capillary imbibition mechanism in
this study is limited, as will be seen. The slight increase in the
final oil recovery factor can be observed in Figure 15 when the
capillary imbibition mechanism (Study 1.5) is added to the
SPE 107372 9

already active mechanisms (Study 1.4). The result comes from
the displacement of a non-wetting phase (oil) by a wetting one
(hot water associated to steam). Because of capillary pressure,
water in the fracture enters the smaller pores of the matrix
increasing its internal pressure.
does not have an impact. The difference of hydrostatic
pressure between the steam in the fracture and the oil in the
matrix establishes a vertical pressure gradient that forces the
oil to leave the matrix.

Figure 16. Average Pressure and Component Production Rates

Figure 15. Oil and Gas Recovery Factor for Studies 1.4 and 1.5 for Studies 1.5 and 1.4

The increase in the internal pressure is responsible, mainly,

for the additional production of the heavy pseudo-component.
As seen previously, the distillation mechanism dominates the
complete component release process. Although the pressure
gradient generated by the entrance of the water into the matrix
improves the flows of these components, as shown in Figure
16, at this point it mainly drives itself to the additional
recovery of the heavy pseudo-component, whose flow is
restricted by its viscosity.

Study 1.6 Thermal Expansion and Viscosity Reduction

As can be seen in Figure 17, Study 1.6 presents a greater
recovery factor of oil than Study 1.1. As the pressure of the
matrix is greater than the bubble pressure, the methane
dissolved in the oil is not released and the source of energy for
the displacement of the matrix fluids towards the fracture is a
result of the thermal expansion of the fluids and of the rock.
On the other hand, the upholding of methane dissolved in the
oil does not affect relative permeability of the oil phase and
neither its flow.
Therefore, oil recovery is favored by the improvement of
the flow condition (methane does not inhibit oil flow), if
compared to Study 1.1, but gas recovery is affected because it
is only produced as dissolved in oil and its recovery depends
on the amount of oil that is expelled due to the thermal
expansion of the fluids and of the rock.
Study 2.3 Solution Gas, Steam Distillation and
Gravitational Drainage.
The effect of the gravitational force on the recovery factor
of the matrix’s fractioned oil obtained as a result of Study 2.3
can be observed in Figure 18. Based on a comparison of this
with the results of Study 1.3, it can be verified that gravity
Figure 17. Oil and Gas Recovery for Studies 1.6 and 1.1
The vertical gradient takes place after overcoming the
pressure difference between the fracture and the matrix, the
latter coming from the solution gas mechanism. Steam in the
fracture enters the larger matrix pores hindering the flow of
the light, average, and heavy pseudo-components. The flow of
the heavy oil is blocked by the reduction of its relative
permeability, since there is an increase of the matrix gas
saturation, due to the water steam that comes from the fracture
and the vaporization of the interstitial water in the matrix.
However, there is also an increase of the oil viscosity for the
release of the methane, light and medium pseudo-components.
In this way, the impediment for the flow of the heavy pseudo-
component reduces its recovery and consequently, the final
recovery factor of the oil is harmed.
10 SPE 107372

Figure 18. Oil and Gas Recovery for Studies 2.3 and 1.3 Figure 19. Oil and of Gas Recovery Factor for Studies 2.5 and 2.4

Study 2.4 Solution Gas, Steam Distillation, Gravitational

Drainage and CO2 Generation. Combined Results
There is anticipation in the recovery of gas and oil from Figures 20 and 21 show the main results obtained with the
the matrix with the addition of CO2 generation (Study 2.4) to present evaluation on the recovery mechanisms of heavy oil in
the mechanisms involved in Study 2.3. It can be explained by a single matrix block surrounded by a fracture, during
the same analyzes presented in Case Study 1.4. The CO2 steamflooding for a 10 year period.
released from the chemical reaction between hot water and the The addition of the involved mechanisms accelerates the
carbonate rock, has the main role of reducing the partial gas and oil recovery from the matrix during the period of high
pressure of the distilled components of the oil phase and to oil recovery (up to 120 days of matrix heating), as can be
accelerate the recovery of these components. observed in Figures 4.21 and 4.22. The energy provided by
each mechanism increases the flow of the fluids and
Study 2.5 Solution Gas, Steam Distillation, Gravitational consequently, the gas and oil recoveries are anticipated.
Drainage, CO2 Generation and Capillary Imbibition.
A discreet increase in the oil recovery factor can be
noticed in Figure 20, when the action of the capillary force is
added (Study 2.5) to the group of mechanisms: solution gas;
viscosity reduction; CO2 generation; and distillation (Study
2.4). Because of the combined action of the gravitational
force, which drives the fracture steam into the largest pores of
the matrix; and of the capillary force that drives the water of
the fracture into the smallest pores of the matrix; the pressure
difference for the fluid expulsion increases. In this way, the oil
flow, especially the heavy pseudo-component, is favored and
consequently its recovery increases.
However, the positive effect of the action of both forces
on the heavy pseudo-component recovery is limited. In this
study, the pressure difference generated by both forces is
small. It depends on the saturation of the fluids, and the
increase of the water saturation in the matrix reduces their
combined action. Therefore, combining the decrease of the
pressure gradient with the low relative permeability and the
high oil viscosity; the heavy pseudo-component has great Figure 20. Gas Recovery Factor for Studies: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3., 1.4, 1.5
and 1.6.
difficulty in exiting the matrix.
SPE 107372
Figure 21. Oil Recovery Factor for Studies: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,
1.6, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.
Conclusions
1. The study confirms the potential of the method of
continuous steam injection in NFRs for the recovery of
heavy oils, here for the reservoir and fluid properties of a
real field, a Cuban reservoir.
2. The overall combined participation of the mechanisms
involved in this research accelerates the recovery of the
matrix gas and oil.
3. In this study, steam distillation is the most effective
mechanism, since it provides complete recovery of
methane and of the light and medium pseudo-components
present in the oil phase. However, in the case of the heavy
pseudo-component its recovery is discreet. Thus, the
quality of the produced oil is significantly improved.
4. The mechanism of solution gas is responsible for a
significant increase of the pressure difference between the
matrix and the fracture.
5. The high viscosity of the oil due to the release of
methane; and of the light and medium pseudo-
components; and the magnitude of the capillary pressure;
makes the contribution of the capillary imbibition
mechanism insignificant for the matrix oil recovery.
6. Because of better conditions for oil flow, the mechanism
of thermal expansion associated to the reduction of
viscosity presents better matrix oil recovery than the
solution gas mechanism associated to the reduction of the
viscosity. However, the recovery of gas of the latter is
larger.
7. The reduction of viscosity is not exactly a mechanism
because it is not an energy source, but it has a definite
role in helping oil recovery from the matrix, when a
pressure gradient between the matrix and the fracture is
generated. The overall effect is to anticipate oil recovery
and delay gas production.
8. The CO2 generation mechanism is responsible for the
anticipation in the recovery of distilled components from
11
the oil phase and for discreet contributions in the recovery
of the heavy pseudo-components.
9. In this study, the mechanism of gravitational drainage has
no relevant influence on oil recovery from the matrix. Its
effect is minor and only in the recovery of the heavy
pseudo-component.
References
1. Reis, J.C.: Oil Recovery Mechanism in Fractured Reservoir during
Steam Injection; SPE 20204 SPE/DOE Symposium on
Enhanced Oil Recovery. p. 22-25, Tulsa, OK, April 1990.
2. Willman, B.T., Valleroy, V.V., Runberg, G.W., Cornelius, A.J.
and Powers, L.W.: Laboratory Studies of Oil Recovery by Steam
Injection; J. Pet. Tech., p. 681, July 1961.
3. Mattax, C. C. and Kyte, J. R.: Imbibition Oil Recovery from
Fractured Water Drive Reservoir; SPEJ., p. 177-184, June
1962.
4. Dehann, H.J. and van Lookeren, J.: Early Result of the First Large
Scale Steam Soak Project in Tia Juana Field Western
Venezuela; JPT. p. 101-110. January 1969.
5. Kyte, J.R.: A Centrifuge Method to Predict Matrix Block Recovery
in Fractured Reservoir; SPEJ., p. 164-170, June 1970.
6. Sahuquet, B. C. and Ferrier, J.J.: Steam-Drive Pilot in a Fractured
Carbonate Reservoir: Lacq Superieur Field; JPT., p. 873-880,
April 1982.
7. Dreher, K.D., Kenyon, D.E., Iwere, F.O.: Heat Flow During Steam
Injection Into a Fractured Carbonate Reservoir; SPE Enhanced
Oil Recovery Symposium, p. 20-23, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April
1986
8. Jensen, T.B. and Sharma, M.P.: Oil Production Mechanisms by
Steam and Hot Water in Fractured Porous Media –
Experimental and Numerical Studies; 112th ASME Winter
Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, Dec. 1991.
9. Briggs, P.J., Beck, D.L., Black, C.J.J. and Bissel, R.: Heavy Oil
from Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs; SPE Reservoir
Engineering, p. 173-179. May 1992.
10. Haghighil, M. and Yortsos, Y.C.: Visualization of Steam
Injection in Fractured System Using Micromodels; SPE 37520,
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium,
Bakersfield, CA, Feb. 1997.
11. van Wunnik, J.N.M. and Wit, K.: Improvement of Gravity
Drainage by Steam Injection into a Fractured Reservoir: an
Analytical Evaluation; SPE Reservoir Engineering, Volume 7,
Number 1, p. 59-66, Feb. 1992.
12. Pooladi-Darvish, M. and Farouq Ali, S.M.: Steam Heating of
Fractured Formations Containing Heavy Oil: Basic Premises
and a Single-Block Analytical Model; SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 1994
13. Chen, W.H., Wasserman, M.L., Fitzmorris, R.E.: A Thermal
Simulator for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs; SPE Symposium
on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, Texas, Feb. 1987.
14. Firoozabadi, A. and Thomas, L.K.: The Sixth SPE Comparative
Solution Project: Dual Porosity Simulator; SPE 18741, 1990.
15. Cathles, L.M., Shoell, M. and Simon, R.A.: Kinetic Model of
CO2 Generation and Mineral and Isotopic Alteration during
Steamflooding; SPE Reservoir Engineering, p.524-530,
November 1990.