PRACTICAL HEAVY OIL RECOVERY S.M. FAROUQ ALI University of Alberta ‘Edmonton, Alt Iberta Fax: (403)486-1201 J.A. JONES ‘Resources Inc., CA and R.F. MELDAU 1997 HhoFOREWORD This is the draft of a book currently being finalized, with publication expected in 1997. The book is intended to be a guide to the engineering aspects of thermal oil recovery. We have attempted to cover the present technology and some aspects of design. We shall appreciate any comments and suggestions. This being a draft, we respectfully ask you not to copy it or circulate it. ‘SM, Faroug Ali aiCONTENTS Introduction Current In Situ Projects 1 Heavy Oil and Tar Sands Introduction 2 it 1 Typical Reservoir Properties 21 Importance of Geology 22 Recovery Processes ‘Thermal Methods 31 Non-thermal Methods 33 Steam and Oil Flow 41 Wacoal Residual Oil Saturation at Temperature Oil Displacement by Steam 42 Formation Heating by Hot Fluid Injection Heat Transfer Mechanism $1 Marx-Langenheim Model 5-2 Steam Injection Heat Eficiency 5-5 Mandl-Volek Modification 5-11 Formation Heating by Hot Water Injection 5-14 Injection at Varying Rates 5-16 Cyclic Steam Stimulation 61 Reservoir Selection 6-4 Performance Prediction 65, Towson-Boberg Method 6-13 Use of Horizontal Wells for Cycle Steaming 6-14 Operating T and Problems 6-15 Steam Injection Profile Control 6-16 ‘Additives in Cyclic Steaming 6-18 CSS-Canada's Super Strategy for Oil Sands Why Cyclic Steam Predictive Models Get No Respect add veCONTENTS (continued) Steamflooding Mechanisms Tel Special Conditions 14 Reservoir Selection 14 Performance Prediction 14 Operational Techniques and Problems 16 jot Design TA ‘Van Lookeren's Method for Steam Conformance 78 Goma Steamflood Prediction 19 Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage In Situ Combustion Mechanics of Dry, Forward Combustion 83 Fuel Content 84 ‘Air Requirement and Air-Oil Ratio 8-5 Combustion Zone Velocity 36 Heat of Combustion 86 Water Formed by Combustion 87 Air Injection Rate 87 Extinction Radius 87 Tar Sand Recovery Introduction 91 Problems in Oil Recovery From Tar Sands 9-1 Methods of ing the Recovery 9-2 Projects in the Tar Sands of Canada 93 Concluding Remarks 95 Mathematical Simulation of Thermal Recovery Processes Introduction 10-1 ‘Thermal Recovery Methods 10-1 Mechanistic Features 10-2 ‘Simulation of Steam Injection 103 Evaluation of Steam Injection Simulation 105 Simulation of In Situ Combustion 10-6 Evaluation of In Situ Combustion Simulation 10-7 Summary 10-7 Steam Generation and Distribution Oilfield Steam Generators 11 Water Treatment 116 Heat Losses 119 iv tot 12. 13. CONTENTS (continued) Well Tes ea Expansion filidey 9 Eaton Casing Prestress Steam Injection Steam Injection Well Completions Tubing Fiow br Te Casing: Tubing Annulus Flow At Sand Face Reactions ‘Heat Loss Into The Earth Insulated Tubing ‘Downhole Steam Generators Computer Models ‘Wellbore Heat Loss Equations Producing Wells Pilot Design and Operation Monitoring Steamfloods Fireflood Operations Surface and Wellbore Heat Loss ‘Surface Heat Loss Mechanisms Surface Heat Loss Calculation ‘Steam Quality Drop in Surface Piping Pressure Drop in Steam Pipelines ‘Wellbore Heat Loss Mechanism Calculation of Heat Loss Insulated Tubing Cement Steam Quality D in the Wellbore ‘Thermal St Faerna edon Down fe Casing Tybi Annulus ‘Comprehensive Treatments of Wellbore Heat Loss 12-3 12-15 141 15-1 16-1 17-1CONTENTS (continued) APPENDICES Nomenclature » Units Employed in Thermal Recovery Calculations C. Wet Steam Properties Equations D. Thermal Properties of Rocks and Fluids Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Liquids ASTM Viscosity Chart Viscosity of Liquid Mixtures Viscosity of Water and Steam Other Units of Viscosity Density ‘Specific Heat Heat ' Df Satdated ‘Rocks of Thormal Difesvy ‘Steamflood Residual Oil Saturation vi Al B-l lo fea ee Lo ocCHAPTER | INTRODUCTION Heavy oil and tar sands are important hydrocarbon resources that are destined to play an increasingly important role in the oil supply of the world, and North America in particular. The heavy oil resources of the world total over 10 trillion barrels, nearly three times the conventional oil in place in the world. The tar sands of Alberta alone contain over two trillion barrels of oil. The important question is: how much of this oil is recoverable and what techniques could be applied? In the prolific heavy oil reservoirs of California oil recovery by steam injection is 50-60% of the initial oil in place, and often much higher. In Alberta, recovery is considerably lower - 5 to 20% in better areas - because the main recovery method is cyclic steam stimulation. Undoubtedly this figure will go up as technology advances. The importance of heavy oil can be appreciated by the fact that nearly 10% of the oil production in the U.S.A. and 20% in Canada is from heavy oil and tar sands resources. These figures are increasing steadily every year. This book is the draft of a text in preparation, and is expected to be published in 1997.Dally Oil Bulletin 44-Jun-96 Ust Of Oil Sands Projects Cold Lake projects Investment ‘Alberta Energy Company Cold Lake-Foster Creek $13 million ‘$200 milion ‘Amoco Canada Petroleum Co Primrose-Wolf Lake ‘$500 milion ELAN Energy inc. Lindbergh Ek Pointy Wolf Lake/Cold Lake ‘$225 milion installation: Imperial Oil Limited Cold Lake Phases 9-10 ‘$250 milion Cold Lake Phases 11-12 ‘$250 million (proposed) Imperial Oi Limited Leming Lake $40 milion Koch Exploration Canada, Reita Lake {$200 milion+ ‘Suncor Inc. Primrose-Bumt Lake {$120 milion Timing immediate 1997-88 1996-2000 1996-2000 immediate immediate 1997-98 1996-99 1998-99 Description SAGD bitumen pilot plant: 1,000 bpd ‘Commercial bitumen project: 30,000 bpd various horizontal ‘well technologies: in situ to 65,500 bpd of bitumen vertical and horizontal driling; ‘SW-SAGD process increase in situ bitumen production to total 127,000 bpd 1999 increase in situ bitumen production: ‘approx. 20,000 bpd following Phases 9 & 10 in situ development production at Cold = Lake operations: 9,400 bpd of bitumen in situ bitumen project: 40,000 bpd Phase 1: SAGD pilot plant: 2,500 bpd Phase 2 commercial plant: increase prodisction to 42,500 bpd Lo J\ l 3 ue f Wabasca Projects ‘Amoco Canada Petroleum Co Wabasca Peace River Projects ‘Shell Canada Limited Peace River Athasbasca Projects CS Resources Limited Christina Lake Gibson Petroleum Company Gulf Canada Resources Ltd ‘Surmont Japan Canada Oil Sands Hangingstone ‘Solv-Ex Corporation ‘Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group Fort McMurray plant ‘Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group Fort McMurray plant $100 milion ‘$43 milion ‘$250 million ‘$10 milion ‘$15 milion $197 milion $170 milion ‘$200 million $320 million 1996-2000 1996-2000 1997-2000 immediate 1996-97 Immediate 1997-2001 Develop properties using horizontal well technologies: 18,000 bpd biturnen production Increase production to 12,500 bpd in situ bitumen thermal development: ‘50,000 bpd Test SAGD bitumen from surface access Increase production from 3,000 bpd Phase 1 SAGD bitumen project: 41,500 bpd Phase 2, f appropriate, Increase production 10 20,000 bpd 1997 SAGD bitumen Project 1997 Bitumen mine and ‘extraction complex: 14,000 bpd of bitumen Environmental measures Upgrader and plant modifications: Increase production ‘0 105,000 bpd of‘Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group ‘Steepbank Mine '$360 milion ‘Syncrude Canada Lid. North Mine, Mildred Lake $500 milion ‘Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora Mine, Mildred Lake $1.5 billion 2001-2006 light sweet crude and custom blends 2001 New bitumen mine: Increase production 40 105,000 bpd 1998 New bitumen mine and debottienecking of Mildred Lake upgrading complex: Production increase to 82 million bbis/year of light sweet crude oil ‘New bitumen mine ‘and remote extraction ‘and debottienecking of Mildred Lake upgrading complex. Production increase to at least 94 million bbis/year.CHAPTER 2 HEAVY OIL AND TAR SANDS 2.1 Introduction Heavy oil and tar sands are important energy sourees, currently making a significant contribution to the overall energy supply of the United States and Canada. Table 2.1 lists the estimated heavy oil and tar sands resources of the world. It is evident that the resource base is much larger than the in-place “conventional” oil, which is about 2 trillion barrels worldwide, with about a third recoverable. In the case of heavy oil and tar sands, the recovery factor varies greatly (from a fraction of a percent to 80%) from area to area, depending on the oil and the reservoir characteristics, as well as the process to be used. We shall first define heavy oil and tar sands, and then outline typical characteristics of the reservoirs. 2.2 Definitions ~~ Heavy oil and tar sands are petroleum or petroleum-like liquids or semi-solids occurring in porous formations - mainly sands, but also consisting of carbonates. In the 1982 UNITAR conference in Venezuela, certain definitions were agreed upon, summarized below: : Classification Viscosity Density at 15.6 C API Gravity (ep at res. temp.) (kg/m3) Heavy Crude 100-1000 943-1000 20-10 ‘Tar Sand Crude >10000 1000 <10 ‘These oils are to be characterized by viscosity and density (1000 kg/m3~62.4 Ib/ft3), with density to be used only if viscosity measurements are not available. Heavy crudes contain 3 wi% or more sulfur, and as much as 2000 ppm of vanadium. Nickel and molybdenum are also frequently encountered. 2.3 Typical Reservoir Properties Most of the heavy oil deposits occur in shallow (3000 ft or less), high permeability (one to several darcies), high ‘porosity (around 30%) poorly consolidated sand formations. The oil saturations tend to be high (50-80% pore volume), and formation thicknesses are 50 to several hundred feet. All of these characteristics are desirablefor the application of oil recovery methods. Many reservoirs in California, Western Venezuela and Alberta have similar characteristics. However, there are important exceptions. For example, in Saskatchewan, with over 16 billion barrels of oil in place, 90% of the oil occurs in formations less than 10 ft in thickness. An important difference between different reservoirs is in the in situ oil viscosities. For example, most California heavy oil viscosities are in the 1000-2000 cp range, while those in Cold Lake, Alberta, are around 100,000 cp. Other reservoir characteristics include pressure, which is somewhat less than the hydrostatic head in Canada, and much less in some fields in California. For example, the average pressure in the San Joaquin valley heavy oll reservoirs is 50-60 psi. Reservoir temperatures differ considerably from area to area, The temperatures in the heavy oil reservoirs of Cantla tend to be low for the depth, e.g. 60-80 F at depths cof 1500-1800 ft, while those in Eastem Venezuela are frequently high, 150-180 F at depths of 3000-4200 ft. This has a considerable impact on the in situ oil viscosity. For example, the heavy oil in the Jobo field, in Eastern Venezuela, is mobile at reservoir conditions, whereas the Athabasca bitumen in Canada is semi-solid, yet the two are essentially identical. 2.4 Importance of Geology Geology is the single most important factor determining the success of a heavy oil recovery project. What aspect of the formation geology is critical would depend on the recovery process. Geology is important in conventional methods such as waterflooding also, but in heavy oil recovery it is more so because the injected fluids (steam, air, oxygen, hot water) are costly and it is crucial that they flow in the desired directions. Permeability variation, in particular with depth, is to be expected. Large permeability variations would imply highly uneven distribution of the injected fluid. If permeability decreases with depth, the situation becomes worse, because gravity segregation of fluids - always present - becomes more pronounced, leading to earlier breakthrough. Vertical permeability modifies the effects of horizontal permeability variation,but only if the horizontal and vertical permeability contrast is high, e.g. due to the presence of tight streaks, shale stringers, etc. Given the geological description of an interval, assuming that it is repeated over the project area (almost never true), it is possible to devise an injection scheme (usually varying with time) that would utilize the injected fluids to the greatest advantage. ‘An important, yet inadequately understood aspect of heavy oil recovery by thermal methods, is the interaction of rock minerals and the injected fluids. It leads to the formation of new minerals, swelling of certain clays, and migration of others. As aresult, there may be irreparable injectivity/productivity loss. Formation compaction may also occur, as fluids are withdrawn, leading to similar damage. Frequently, formation permeability is so high that some permeability loss can be tolerated. In other instances, excessive damage has led to project failure. Laboratory screening can often help to recognize problems of this type in advance, although the laboratory results are often more pessimistic than field performance. Important aspects of heavy oil formation geology include bottom water and high gas saturation zones, which tend to act as thief zones for the injected fluids. Bottom water can take many forms: it may consist of a low oil saturation zone, it may be & transition zone, or it may a water sand, The water zone may even occur above the oil zone ("top water"), as is the case in some formations in Athabasca and California, The sand in the water zone is often fine-grained. It may be shaly also, making it less permeable to -the injected fluids, and thus less detrimental. Furthermore, shales stringers may be present at the base of the oil sand. The areal extent of such permeability barriers would determine the effectiveness of the recovery process employed. vareug All an a9 abLo | d TABLE 2.1 i Heavy Oil and Tar Sends Deposits ue Remate___Raers FA ] We Wath? Wah Who We J} Sonata y “Atnabeses sm | Micesble sm seam amt 0 Af on tar 2000 Inbetwoce Peace River 14930 Wines soe 200 (Ca Lake—Primcoe . «™ 0000 oydminner om ao Met and 2 0 Cirtote Tange 198 sono } rig eh no Tout som 2210" a2 nied Stes ‘Calivoria mms 4 Keech 1 3 4 ‘Tem 120 Van 28 ewe 2D ; tee * o 1 3 } rodeing elds en Ly Tout 2 Tw am osm erica mw " } Venere Between 1N1291 Futon aM Sane wa Sa 1 J we sto000 oer, Sout Amesica ao = x6 } Earope a nt a } } ‘Aen Bm ses! . idle Bunt wo 7M kom (furs for One, soon ‘Sood Aria, and mine } sratebie USSR and ASIA wo som oom Toul Between 12619 TITS ATONE SHEE S714 7} od RIF 21375 iy Scand tas Berwcen ea7so0 SALOMS HPS SOME N37 wed 979530 Gos | faa ]OWL_IN PLACE WORLDWIDE CALIFORNIA ‘70s STEAM INJECTION { ua : e ci bod uy i , ‘ i ¢ ; ig uf 5 g z : iG ‘ 5 Td z U = STEAMFLOOD ( : : [-—--—------—__- ~~ { CYCLIC STEAMING Le PRODUCTION RATE DUE TO THE APPLICATION OF THERMAL METHODS IN CALIFORNIA BE al | i f2 328 20 zis EE2 wm 58 ~ HBAVY OIL, Paroug All & Meldew Page2-sQo SANTA MARIA Les Angeles Basin ———7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OIL FIELDS HBAVY @IL Parong All & Meldae Page 2-6 Cy ac Li Lo xCANADA TAR & HEAVY OIL SANDS ere wT. : | ‘i ieee | X tHaMAsca ay Hanvy Olt Sends Tort HEAVY OIL FIELDS IN VENEZUELA MBAVY OIL Farong Ali & Meléas Page 2-752. Birdwell, B.F., Subt, F.G., and Silberberg, LH.: "A Survey of Thermal Recovery Operations in Texas Oil Fields”, Texas Petroleum Research Committee, Austin (1964). 53. Burk, R.G.: "Combustion Project is Making a Profit", Oil & Gas J. (Jan 18, 1965) 44, 54, Hardy, W.C., Fletcher, P.B., Shepard, J.C., Dittman, E.W., and Zadow, D.W.: “In ‘Situ Combustion Performance in a Thin Reservoir Containing High-Gravity Oil", JPT (Feb. 1972) 199-208. 55. Anonymous: “Fireflood Peps Up Old Arkansas Field", Oil & Gas J, (Oct. 11, 1965) 100. ae Wm ewe fe) ny eee La wwRECOVERY PROCESSES Due to the adverse characteristics of heavy oils and oil sands, such as high viscosity and low gas solubility, conventional methods of recovery are rarely applicable. Primary recovery is very low, averaging about 5 perceat of the oil-in-place. Alternative recovery processes include thermal and non-thermal methods. 3.1 Thermal Methods ‘Thermal techniques aim at reducing oil viscosity in order to increase its mobility, through the application of heat. A 400*F temperature increase reduces the viscouity of most heavy oils to about 1 ep. This is accomplished either by hot fluid injection or by underground combustion. The thermal processes curreatly in use are: Cyclic steam stimulation is basically a single well operation, although sooner or later, communication between the wells developsand the process becomes very complex. Steam is injected into a well at a high rate for a short time (10 days to one month), following which the well may be shut in for afew days for heat distribution. After that, the well is allowed to flow or pumped, The oil rate increases rapidly toa high value, and stays at an economic level for months, When the rate becomes uneconomic, the whole process is repeated. ‘This is the most successful EOR method, and is usually the first stage in steamflood development. It is the only economic oil recovery method in the tar sands of Canada and the California coast. RECOVERY PROCESSES Feroeg All & Molden Page 3-1Steamflooding, much like waterflooding, isa pattern drive, with arrays of injection and production wells. In this case, the performances strongly dependent on the pattern size, since heat loss to the surrounding rocks can consume a large proportion of the injected heat. Steam is continuously injected into the injector, resulting in the formation of a steam zone, which advances at an ever-decreasing rate. Steam overrides due to gravity. ‘Steam reduces the oil saturation within the steam zone to very low values, of the order of 10%. When steam breakthrough occurs, the steam injection rate is reduced to a value that is. enough to supply the heat loss. Ata later time steam is discontinued, and hot water may be injected. ‘The oil recovery in a steamflood can be high, over 50% in many cases, but the oil-steam ratio is lower than that in cyclic steam stimulation because of the higher heat loss. In-Situ combustion (2ls0 called fireflooding) is « unique process because a portion (about 10%) of the in-place oil is oxidized to generate heat. As such, the process has a hhigh thermal efficiency. Air (or axygen-cnriched air, or even pure oxygen) must be injected to oxidize the oil. Heats generated within a very narrow combustion zone at a high temperature (around 100°C). Directly abead of the combustion zone, cracking of the oil occurs, leading to deposition of a heavy fraction ("coke"), which burns to support combustion. ‘There is usually severe gravity override of the combustion zone, as a result it is more nearly horizontal than vertical. Once breakthrough occurs in a producer, well temperatures increase steeply, and operation becomes difficult and costly. At the same time, however, the oil viscosity is greatly lowered so the oil production rates are also at a peak. Cooling of the producers may be needed. Corrosion, a problem in in sita combustion, becomes ever more severe. Largevolumes of flue gasare produced, causing mechanical problems such as low pump efficiency, abrasion, erosion, etc., as well as reservoir oil flow restriction due to high gas saturation. An important advance in in situ combustion is water injection with air (wet combustion). ‘Water helps to transport the heat accumulatedin the “burned” sand downstream, and thus increases the thermal efficiency of the process. ‘Well over 100 firefloods have been conducted, with relatively few clear successes. Hot waterfloodiag is seldom employed because heat lostes in surface lines, wellbore and formation, cause a large drop in temperature and reduce its effectiveness in decreasing the oil viscosity. Nevertheless, itis a process to consider for deep heavy oil formations, where steam is not likely to be successfal. An example is the Kaparuk field in Alaska. RECOVERY PROCESSES Farong Ali & Meldse Page 3-2 CJ bo) ew CI wo 3 tse ws cs iLWellbore heating is mainly used to heat the formation in the vicinity of the wellbore, and is seldom used. 3.2.Non-Thermal Methods Non-thermal heavy oil recovery techniques™ could be considered for moderately viscous oils (50 - 200 ep), thin formation (less than 30 ft) low permeabilities (lets than 1 md) and depths greater than 3000 ft such as those of Wyoming and California. Non- thermal methods serve to reduce the viscosity of oil, increase the viscosity of the displacing fluid, or reduce the interfacial tension, The major non-thermal processes are: Polymer flooding: In this process, a water soluble polymer is used to decrease the mobility ratio of a waterflood by increasing the drive water viscosity, and primarily improve the volumetric sweep efficiency. It is applicable in the 10 to 150 cp viscosity range. Laboratory and simulation studies showed that the oil recovery isgenerally higher than waterflood oil recovery”, perhaps 1 to 5 percent additional. Polymer flooding was reported to be successful in Huntington Beach, California™ and in Taber South, Canada™, In Lloydminster, the process was only marginally successful. Surfactant flooding: A surfactant reduces the oil-water interfacial tension and increases the oil displacement efficiency. Surfactant flooding has been employed mostly in light oil reservoirs". ‘The main disadvantage of this method, as also of other ‘chemical methods, isthe adsorption of the surfactant on the rock matrix, which causes the surfactant slug tolote its effectiveness at a short distance from the injection well. At the present time, few if any surfactant floods have been successful in light or heavy oils, Causticflooding: A suitable alkali (asually sodium hydroxide or caustic) is injected in ‘a dilute aqueous solution, which reacts with the acid compounds in the crude oil toform surfactants in situ. These surfactants lead to reduction in interfacial tension, and also the emulsion sformed asa result helpin improving the mobility ratioin anumber of ways. A concise discussion of the process has been given by Johnson, One of the problems with alkaline flooding is the consumption of the chemical (caustic) by the rock. ‘This occurs by a number of mechanisms, including clay reactions. Furthermore, interfacial tension studies using caustic show that considerable concentrations (often approaching 1%) are necessary in order to effect a significant reduction in the interfacial tension. Combinations with polymer flooding and surfactant have also been tested. Because in caustic flooding the chemical has to react with the oil, its flow pattern isimportant. Alsoto be considered is the dilution of the injected solution by the formation water, as well as the effect of salts on interfacial tension. Causticfloods have had limited succets in the field, Such a flood should be considered for a given crade RECOVERY PROCESSES Farong All & Meléan Page 3-3the acid number is 0.5 mg KOH/g crude, or greater. Heavy oils appear to be better suited for this process. Emulsion flooding: The emulsion is prepared at the surface and subsequently injected into the formation. The emulsions cause a decrease in the water mobility and an improvement in the volumetric sweep efficiency". This process has yet to be field tested, Immiscible carbon dioxide flooding: Recent work has shown that injection of carbon ‘water, in a carefully planned strategy, can substantially increase oil recovery over awaterflood (20 percent incremental under optimal conditions), in thecase of moderately viscous oils (<1000¢p). Carbon dioxide lowers oil viscosity, increases oil volume, and reduces oil-water interfacial tension”. Carbonated waterflooding: This process has been employed in the past with limited success. The aim isto inject carbon dioxide and water simultaneously. ‘Wettability alteration flooding: The aim in this process is to change the rock surface from oil-wet towater-wet. Thisis accomplished by injecting an acid, such as hydrochloric acid, or sodium hydroxide, with drive water™”. Waterflooding: It is inexpentive and simple to use, however, the displacement and sweep efficiencies arelow. The additional recovery over primary averages 3to 10 percent of the oil in-place. This method has been used with some success in the Lloydminster fields, and in other areas, e.g., North Nocona Field of Texas™ and Inglewood Field, California™, On the whole, non-thermal methods have been largely unsuccessful for heavy oil recovery. A survey of 62 field projects™ showed that only immiscible CO, has been. marginally successful in the tests reported. SMPA Jan 1967 RECOVERY PROCESSES Paroeg All & Meléas Page 3-4 co eo co lo wo ~~ oJ LJ ee ComesTE a) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) aie 8) 9) 10) 1) 12) 13) RECOVERY PROCESSES Farowg Ali & Molden REFERENCES Anonymous: "Oxygen Firefloods Gaining Acceptance", Oilweek (March 11, 1985) 22. Anonymous: "“lieavy Crude Is Flooded in Canada", Petroleum Week (April 17, 1959) 27-28. Anonymous: “Fireflood Successful After Waterflood", Oil and Gas Journal (October 6, 1969) 102. Anonymous: “Will Thermal Flood Boom Rival Gold Rush", California Oil World (February, 1966) 6. Anonymous: “Success Leads to Fireflood Expansion", O41 and Gas Journal (April 19, 1965) 72. Anonymous: "The Heat's On Viscous Crude", Of] and Gas Journal (October 19, 1964) 75. Anonymous: “"Fireflood Peps Up Old Arkansas Field", Oi] and Gas Journal (October 11, 1965) 100. Anonymous: "Shell Gets Green Light for Peace River Expansion", Oilweek ‘(November 19, 1984) 8-9. Anonymous: Submission to ERCB by Esso on the Cold Lake Project, Vol. II, Section 4, Calgary (1978). Anonymous: “Esso Adds Four More Phases to Booming Cold Lake Project", Enhanced Recovery Week (November 4, 1985) 1. Adams, R.H.,.and Khan, A.M.: "Cyclic Steam Injection Project Performance Analysis and Some Results of a Continuous Steam Displacement Pilot", Journal of Petroleum Technology (January, 1969) 95-100. Alikhan, A.A., and Faroug Ali, S.M.: “Current Status of Nonthermal Heavy Oil Recovery", SPE 11846, Presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT (May 23-25, 1983). J Amelin, I.D., Sergeev, A.I. and Geikhman, G.M.: | “Thermal Stimulation of Formation by a Moving Combustion Front (Experimental Industrial Tests on the Pavlova Gort Reservoir) (in Russian), Neftyance Khozaistvo (January, 41. Page 3-5.tu 14) Birdwell, B.F., Subt, F.G., and Silberberg, I.H.? 7 “A Survey of Thermal Recovery Operations in Texas Oil Fields", Texas Petroleum Research committee, Austin (1964). 1S) Bott, R.C.: “Cyclic Steam Project in a Virgin Tar Re a voir", Journal of Petroleum Technology (May, 1967) S91. 7 16) Buckles, R.S.: "Steam Stimulation Heavy Oil Recovery y at Cold Lake, Alberta", SPE 7994, presented at the California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California ) (april 18-20, 1979). J 17) Burke, R.G.: “Combustion Project Is Making a Profit", Oil and Gas Journal (January 18, 1965) 44. 18) Coffer, H.F., and Dew, J.N.: “Current Progress of Pield Operations Using Newer Recovery Methods", paper } presented at Institute on Economics of the Petroleum Industry, Dallas (March, 1964). 19) deNevers, N.: “Carbonated Waterflooding", World Oil (September, 1966) 93-96. 20) Dietrich, W.K., and Willhite, G.P.: "Steam Soak Results - Sisquoc Pool, Cat Canyon Oil Field, Santa Barbara County", Petroleum Industry Conference on Thermal Recovery, Los Angeles (June 6, 1966) 61-68. es 21) Dietzman, W.D., Carrales, M., Jr., and Jirik, C.J.: “Heavy Crude Oil Reservoirs in the United States: A Survey", B. of Mines Inf. Circ. 8263 (1965). cs 22) Dillabough, J.A., and Prats, M.: “Recovering Bitumen From Peace River Deposits", Oil and Gas Journal (November 11, 1974) 186-197, 23) Doscher, T.M., Labelle, R.W., Sawatsky, L.H., and .'Zwicky, R.W.: "Steam Drive Successful in Canad Oil sands", Petroleum Engineer (January, 1964) 71-78. 24) Doscher, T.M.: “Technical Problems in In-Situ Methods ) for Recovery of Bitumen From Tar Sands", Panel Discussion 13(6), 7th World Petroleum Congre: - Mexico City (April, 1967). ] 25) Elliot, C.E., and Ferrer, J.: “Recovery of Viscous Oils From Stratified Reservoirs Using Polymer Solutions", SPE 4846, presented at the SPE-European Spring Meeting, J Amsterdam (May 29-30, 1974). a) RECOVERY PROCESSES Ferong Ali & Molden romps( *26) 27) ff 28) 29) 30) 31) l 32) 33) { “34) : 36) ( 37) 35), Emery, M.N.: “Small Steam Flood Works for Independent", Petroleum Engineer (September, 1966) 63-67. Faroug Ali, S.M.: "A Current Appraisal of In-Situ Combustion Field Tests", Journal of Petroleum Technology (April, 1972) 477-486. Faroug Ali, S.M.: “Current Status of Steam Injection As a Heavy Oil Recovery Method", Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology (January-March, 1974) 54-68. Faroug Ali, S.H.: ‘Heavy Oi1 Recovery ~ Principles, Practicality, Potential, and Problems", SPE 4935, presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Billings, Montana (May 15-16, 1974). Faroug Ali, S.M.: “Non-thermal Heavy Oil Recovery Methods", SPE 5893, presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming (May 11-12, 1976). Faroug Ali, S.M.: “Multiphase, Multidimensional Simulation of In-Situ Combustion", SPE 6896, presented at the 52nd Annual Fall Meeting, Denver, Colorado (October 9-12, 1977). Faroug Ali, S.M., and Meldau, R.P.: "Current Stean- flood Technology", Journal of Petroleum Technology (October, 1979) 1332-1342. Faroug Ali, 5.M.: “Effect of Bottom Water and Gas Cap on Thermal Recovery", SPE 11732, presented at the 53rd Annual California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California (March 23-25, 1983). Gates, C.F., and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: "Field Results of South Belridge Thermal Recovery Experiment", 7 AIME 213 (1958) 236-244. Gates, C.F., and Sklar, I.: "Combustion as a Primary Recovery Process - Midway Sunset Field", Journal of Petroleum Technology (August, 1971) 981-986. Gates, C.F., and Brewer, S.W.: "Steam Injection Into the D and E Zone, Tulare Formation, South Belridge Field, Kern County, California", Journal of Petroleum Technology (March, 1975) 343-348. Green, K.B.: "The Fireflood: Cox Penn Sand", Oil and Gas Journal (July 17, 1967) 66. RECOVERY PROCESSES Farong All & Meldae Page 3-738) 39) 40) 4.) 42) 43) 44) 45) 46) 47) RECOVERY PROCESSES Faroug All & Meléae Hall, A.L., and Bowman, R.W.: “Operation and Performance of the Slocum Thermal Recovery Project", Journal of Petroleum Technology (April, 1973) 402-408. Hardy, W.C., Fletcher, P.B., Shepard, J.C., Dittman, E.W., and zadow, D.w.: “In-Situ Combustion Performance in a Thin Reservoir Containing High-Gravity 0i1", Journal of Petroleum Technology (February, 1972) 199-208. Harvie, J.D., Nicholls, J.H., and Winestock, A.G. “Phe Outlook for Canadian Oil Sands Development", presented at the 7lst National Meeting of American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Dallas, Texas (February 20-23, 1972). Inks, C.G. a Lahring, R.I.: “Controlled Evaluation of a Surfactant in Secondary Recovery", Journal of Petroleum Technology (November, 1968) 1320-1324. Jameson, C.E.: “The Lloydminster Heavy Oil Area", Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology (July- September, 1973) 17-19. Jenkins, G.R., and Kirkpatrick, J.W.: “Twenty Years Operations of an In-Situ Combustion Project", presented at the 29th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, Alberta (June 13-16, 1978). Jennings, H.¥., dr., Johnson, C.£., Jr., and.McAuliffe, C.D.: "A Caustic Waterflooding Process for Heavy Oils", Journal of Petroleum Technology (December, 1974) 1344-1352, Johnson, C.E., dr.: “Status of Caustic and Emulsion Methods", SPE 5561, presented at the 50th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Texas (September 28-October 1, 1975). Kemp, E.M.: “Cold Lake Project: the Resource, the Particular Production Techniques, and Related Challenges", Proceedings of the Saskatchewan Heavy Oil Conference (November 28-30, 1984). Knight, B.L., and Rhudy, J.S.: "Recovery of High Viscosity Crudes by Polymer Flooding", presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of CIM, Banff, Alberta (June 11- 13, 1975). (ea) cI mc{ 48) 49) 50) 51) 52) 53) 54) 55) 56). 57) 58) Leach, R.O., Wagner, O.R., Wood, H.W., and Harpke, C.F.: "A Laboratory and Field Study of Wettability Adjustment in Waterflooding", Trans. AIME, Vol. 225 (1962) 206-212. Long, R.J.: “Case History of Steam Soaking in the Kern River Field, California", Journal of Petroleum Technology (September, 1965) 989-993. Lozanski, W.R., and Martin, I.: “Taber South-Cana First Polymer Flood", Paper 7011, presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of CIM, Calgary, Alberta (May 6-8, 1970). McAuliffe, C.D.: "Crude-Oil-In-Water Emulsions to Improve Fluid Flow in an Oil Reservoir", Journal of Petroleum Technology (June, 1973) 721-726. Miller, K.A.: “Interim Progress Report on Husky's Pikes Peak Steam Pilot”, presented at the First Annual Technical Meeting of the South Saskatchewan Section of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Regina, Saskatchewan (September 15-17, 1985). Nicholls, J.H., and Luhning, R.W.: “Heavy Oil Sand ‘In-Situ Pilot Plants in Alberta (Past and Present)", aoeae of Canadian Petroleum Technology (July-September, 1977) 50-61. Oefelein, F.H., and Walker, J.W.: “California Flood Yields Profitable Recovery of Heavy Oil from Multi- layered Reservoir", Journal of Petroleum Technology (may, 1964) 509-514. Oganov, K.A.: “Fundamentals of Thermal Stimulation of Ce (In Russian), Nedra Press, Moscow 967). Parrish, D.R., Rausch, R.W., Beaver, K.W., and Wood, H.W.: round Combustion in the Shannon Pool, Wyoming", Journal of Petroleum Technology (February, 1962) 197-205. Payne, R.W., and Zambrano, G.: “Cyclic Steam Injection Helps Raise Venezuela Production", Oil and Gas Journal (May 24, 1965) 78-82. Petcovici, V.: “Etude Complexe sur 1'Explotacion par Combustion in situ du Gisement d'Huile de Suplacu de Barcau" (In Romanian), ICPTG, Cimpina, Romania (1970). RECOVERY PROCESSES Paroeg All & Meldes Page 3-959) 60) 61) 62) 63) 64) 65) 66) 67) 68) 69) Phizackerley, P.H., and Scott, L.0.: “The Major Tar Sand Deposits of the World", P.D. 13, 7th World Petroleum Congress, Mexico (1967). Prasad, B.D., and Lillo, H.0.: “Overview of Oil Sands Development and its Role in Meeting Canada's Energy Needs", paper presented at the International Mining Exhibition and Conference, Calgary, Alberta (August 26- 28, 1980). Prats, M.: “Peace River Steam Drive Scaled Model Experiments", Oil Sands of Canada-Venezuela, Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Edmonton, Alberta (1978) 346-363. Price, £.0., and McLaren, G.R.: “Steam Cyclic Operations at Midway-Sunset Sections 15A and 23A", Petroleum Industry Conference on Thermal Recovery, Los Angeles, California (June 6, 1966) 69-74. Pursley, S.A., and Graham, H.L.: "Borregos Field Surfactant Pilot Test", Journal of Petroleum Technology (June, 1975) 695-700. Reddy, G.S., Adams, D.M., and Meldau, R.F.: "Summary of Enhanced Oil Recovery Pilots for Oil Sands and Heavy Oil in Canada", second UNITAR Conference, Caracas, Venezuela (1982). Simm, C.: “Improved Firefloods May cut Steam's Advantages", World Oil (March, 1972) 59-62. Simon, R., and Grave, D.J.: “Generalized Correlations for Predicting Solubility, Swelling and Viscosity Behavior of CO,-Crude Oil Systems", Journal of Petroleum Technology (January, 1965) 102-106. Slater, G.E., and Paroug Ali, S.M.: “Two Dimensional Polymer Flood Simulation", SPE 3003, presented at the 45th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Texas (October 4-7, 1970). Sutton, E.: “Waterflood Performance in a High Viscosity O11 Reservoir’, Journal of Petroleum Technology (December, 1963), 1281-1284. Ustick, R.E., and Hillhouse, J.D.: “Comparison of Polymer Flooding and Waterflooding at Huntington Beach, California", Journal of Petroleum Technology (September, 1967) 1103-1111. RECOVERY PROCESSES Faron All & Meléas Page 3-10 470) 0) 72) 73) 74) 75) Wagner, 0.R., and Leach, R.0.: “Improving Oil Displacement Efficiency by Wettability Adjustment", Trans. AIME, Vol. 216(1959) 65. Webber, H.J.: “The Oil Sands of Alberta", presented at the 18th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Banff, Alberta (May, 1967). Welker, J.R., and Dunlop, D.D. “Physical Properti: of Carbonated Oils", Journal of Petroleum Technology (August, 1963) 873-876. Wilson, L.A., and Root, P.J.: “Cost Comparison of Reservoir Heating Using Steam or Air", Journal of Petroleum Technology (February, 1966) 233-239. Winestock, A.G.: “Developing A Steam Recovery Technology", presented at Oil Sands Symposium, Can. Soc. Petr. Geol., Calgary, Alberta (September 5-9, 1973). Yoelin, §.D.: “The TM-Sand Steam Stimulation Project, Huntington Beach Offshore Field - A Remarkable Example of a Heavy Oil Reservoir Responding to the Cyclic Steam Injection Process", SPE 3104, presented at the 45th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Texas (October 4-7, 1970). RECOVERY PROCESSES Farong Ali & Meldan Page 3-11CHAPTER 4 STEAM AND OIL FLOW 4.1 Introduction In this chapter we shall extend the main concepts of fluid flow in porous media to the case of steam/water-oil flow. Isothermal three-phase flow in porous media is complex enough, but the presence of a varying temperature - varying with position and time - and a condensing vapor (steam, hydrocarbon vapor) greatly adds to the complexity. The discussion will be limited to general fearures of reservoir flow, when steam is injected. Any detailed description of non-isothermal three-phase flow would require mathematical simulation, 42. Waerfiond ad ‘Waterflooding is the most important oil recovery method beyond primary recovery. ‘Waterflood oil recovery is determined by how much oil is left upon the injection of a certain volume (pore volumes) of water. This is intrinsically governed by the mobility ratio M, and the capillary number N,. Mobility 2, in darcies/cp, of a fluid is the ratio of the effective permeability k (darcies) to the viscosity }1 (cp) of the fluid, and mobility ratio is defined as the ratio of the mobility of the displacing fluid jing, to that of the displaced fluid ped, i.e. MeAing/Aed- ‘The values of the effective permeabilities can be determined from the relative permeability curves (¢.g. effective permeability to oil ko=krok, where kyo is relative permeability to oil (fraction), and k is absolute permeability in darcies. There are three ways of doing that, one of which is to use the value of the relative permeabilities at the end point saturations. Figure 4.1 shows a plot of displaceable oil as a function of mobility ratio for various volumes of water injected. Clearly, for a highly unfavourable mobility ratio many pore ‘volumes of water will have to be injected in order to attain the “residual oil saturation.” ‘The above discussion takes no account of viscous fingering. Such instabilities form as a result of large (unfavourable) mobility ratios. Under such conditions, any minor heterogeneity can trigger viscous fingering, which would result in inefficient displacement of il by the displacing fluid. Such instabilities are present in all oil recovery processes, given that the governing mobility ratio is large. In complex recovery methods, an overall mobility ratio can be defined on a local and temporal basis, with respect to a selected displacement front. STEAM AND OIL FLOW Faroug Ali & Meldau Page4tFigure 4.2 shows a plot of the residual oil saturation as a function of the capillary number, Ne. Itis clear that only for very large values of the capillary number the waterflood residual oil saturation (the value on the left-hand axis) shows an appreciable decrease. The capillary number can be increased through an increase in velocity (or potential gradient), or & decrease in the interfacial tension. The latter approach is more practical. 4.3 Effect of Temperature ‘A temperature increase leads to a drastic reduction in oil viscosity, much greater than that for water, Appendix D gives correlations and methods for calcualting oil and water viscosities at elevated temperatures. Figure 2.1 (b) (p. D-6) gives generalized plots for California oils. As an example, the viscosity of a 1000 cp oil at a reservoir temperature of 80° F (27° C) decreases to 1 cp at a temperature of 350° F (177° C), The corresponding decrease in the viscosity of water is from 1 cp t0 0.15 cp. It is clear that the mobility ratio would decrease as a result of the displacement of oil by hot rather than cold water (in this example, from 1000 to 6, assuming that the effective permeabilities are same for oil and water). ‘The relative permeabilities are also affected by an increase in temperature, This is attributed to the presence of clays and minerals in the rock, as well as the wettability and contact angle changes with an increase in temperature. In most instances, the residual oil saturation decreases and the irreducible water saturation increases with an increase in temperature, Additionally, the water relative permeability appears to decrease, while the oil relative permeability increases. On the whole, the oil tends to become more mobile as a result of a temperature increase, not even considering the viscosity decrease. Figure 4.3 shows oil and water relative permeability curves at two different temperatures. ‘The oil-water interfacial tension would decrease by a factor of about 10 in the previous example. Although the capillary number increases considerably, other effects are more important. 4.4 Oil Displacement by Steam ‘The displacement mechanism of oil by steam is more complex than the above description. In fact, on a microscopic basis, steam tends to behave as a viscous fluid. If a steam “finger” gets too far ahead of the main front, it would condense, because of the low temperatures there. As a result, the “effective” mobility ratio in a steam displacement appears to be favourable. Figure 4.3 shows such a plot. ‘The process of oil/water displacement by steam involves other important effects as well, arising from the heat transfer to the cold oil ahead of the front and the gravity segregation of STEAM AND OIL FLOW Faroug Ali & Meldau Page 4-2 us wo (ey wisteam. The discussion of the previous section assumed a constant temperature throughout. In reality, the oil ahead of the steam is cold. At the same time, steam tends to segregate toward the upper part of the formation due to its low density, Asa result, the oil at the top is heated and mobilized, and driven by steam. The movement and voidage of oil further __ Promotes steam flow in the upper pants of the formation. Thus steam tends to segregate and ‘spread over the top of the formation. ‘Subsequent advance of the steam zone is downwards, which is accelerated if the wells are produced at an appreciable rate. ‘Steam segregation, and its spreading over the formation is advantageous, although it Teads to a low vertical sweep in thick formations. If steam were of the same density as oil, and there were no gravity segregation of steam, the displcement of oil would be essentially frontal, with a stable steam front. As a result, very high injection pressures (detrimental to ‘steamflooding from the point of view of latent heat content, heat loss, etc.) would be needed. In fact, under such conditions, steamflooding of very high viscosity oils would be impractical. Thus gravity segregation of steam, the initially conductive, and later, convective heating of the oil below, and carry-over of the mobilized oil by the steam condensate flowing downwards, make steamflooding work in even very viscous oils. ‘There is still an upper limit to oil viscosity, when the in-place oil just does not get heated fast enough, as in tar sands, Even in those cases, it is possible to employ some form of steamflooding. Notice also that the volume of steam is an important factor. One volume of water at S00 psia (3.4 MPa) occupies 50 volumes as steam. As a result, steam like a gas is capable of ‘sweeping a large volume, while unlike a gas heating the oil and condensing. Steam is thus a condensable gas, like carbon dioxide, which dissolves in the oil and reduces oil viscosity. ‘However, it is vastly more effective than carbon dioxide: while the viscosity reduction by carbon dioxide is of the order of 10, that by steam is of the order of 1000, Also, carbon dioxide does not dissolve instantaneously. The large volume of steam is particularly significant in the steam zone, after steam breakthrough. At this point, the pressure drop in the steam zone is low, and it is possible to reduce steam rates considerably. (It should be noted, however, that this requires careful engineering, because often the oil rate drops as ‘Steam rate is reduced, due to excessive condensation, and other phenomena). SMFA Oct 1989 STEAM AND OIL FLOW Faroug Ali & Meldau Page 4-3mS, “AS. VOLOF WATERBUSCTED: 8 5 Residual Olt Saturation, % 1 1 v0 To00 10°? 10 TeF wy Mobility Ratio, M Capillary Number J Fig. 4.m Effect of mobility ratio on vaterflocd oil recovery. m1 mie as min meee, owen aw mee ) Fig. 4. 4-Cateulated reciprocal effective mobility rallo f i Pott seremnrarsior aetna alge the | id he slsary entation presse er nat ofthe capaced fila la Talaled Hoeery to the Bratsre by rane of peal an tone 0) 0 Srcthermal tamper and yeoman waren earuntion Froese races’) Fig. 4.3—Wwat relative permeabil ot ernie nated ea Pot aca) STEAM AND OIL FLOW Faroug Ali & Meldau Page 4-4ce & 7? cam j U mM 5.1 CHAPTER 5 FORMATION HEATING BY HOT FLUID INJECTION When a hot fluid - gas, liquid, or a mixture of the two - is injected into an oil-bearing porous medium, heat is transferred to the rock matrix and the interstitial fluids, as well as to the adjacent nonproductive formations, often referred to as overburden and underburden. ‘Such heat transfer is primarily due to conduction and convection; it is complicated by phase changes and the resulting heat exchange. In the following, we shall discuss a few basic approaches to the calculation of heated areas, and, in one case, temperature distributions. These methods are based upon a number of simplifying assumptions, which permit the closed form solution of the problem. Without-such simplifications, numerical solution would be necessary, which falls in the realm of reservoir simulation - the subject of another chapter. Heat Transfer Mechanism In hot fluid injection, heat is transferred to the rock matrix and the fluids by conduction and convection. As the injected fluid partially displaces the oil, water, and gas in place, it carries the heat into the pore spaces. The in-place fluids are heated by conduction, and the displaced fluids are heated by conduction and convection, with either predominating, depending on the injected fluid type, and the oil viscosity. The conductive heat transfer to the rock matrix helps to equalize the solid and the fluid temperatures, which are usually assumed to be equal in hot fluid injection computations. However, the type of fluid will determine the time to reach such thermal equilibrium. For instance, the heat transfer coefficient in the case of condensing steam is much higher than in the case of hot water; this may partially be responsible for the poor sweep in the latter case. Usually there is a vertical temperature gradient in a formation into which fluid is injected, e.g. parallel to the bedding plane. In some heat injection calculations, the temperature is assumed to be constant along any vertical plane (j.e., “infinite” vertical thermal conductivity). ‘There is invariably a temperature gradient along the injection path. However, in a number of mathematical treatments of steam injection, the temperature in the "steam zone” is assumed to be constant, so that at any time there are only two temperatures, the temperature T, in the steam zone, abruptly dropping to Tp, the original reservoir temperature (ie., the so-called "step function” temperature profile). This simplified picture is a good approximation to the actual temperature distribution in steam injection, od5.2 Heat is transferred to the overburden and the underburden from the heated sand, into which the hot fluid is being injected. This heat transfer is by conduction, since there is no fluid flow. ‘The overall process, however, is complex, because, with the advance of the heat front in the sand, the adjacent formations are exposed to temperature changes for varying lengths of time. The resulting temperature gradients give rise to flow of heat in two or three dimensions in the overburden and underburden . ‘The net outcome of the above mechanisms is that the heat front travels more slowly than the fluid front in any heat injection method. ‘At a given temperature, T, (saturation temperature, corresponding to the prevailing pressure, p,), while hot water carries only sensible heat, hy, steam additionally contains latent heat, Ly as discussed in Chapter III. This difference in the nature of steam and water is responsible for the contrast in formation heating by either fluid. Hot water must experience a temperature drop in order to transfer heat to the rock and the fluids. Steam, on the other hand, can transfer all of its latent heat without any change in temperature, ‘When steam is injected into an oil-bearing formation at temperature, TR , it displaces a certain fraction of the in-place oil, while condensing and heating the rock and the fluids simultaneously. ‘The condensate formed, still at temperature T, , moves ahead of the freshly injected steam, preheating the rock farther ahead. Under idealized conditions (viz. no gravity segregation of steam, uniform thickness, injection over entire thickness, and no pressure drop - ie., temperature drop - in the steam-invaded zone), it could be postulated that the heated zone is at a constant temperature, T , extending from the injection end to the point where the temperature “abruptly” drops from Ts to TR. Marx and Langenheim (5.1) first postulated such a picture for steam injection. Later work by Mandl and Volek (5.2) showed that in spite of the apparent simplicity of the Marx-Langenheim model, it does in fact yield an answer close to the exact answer for some cases. We shall first consider the Marx-Langenheim approach, and then discuss the more comprehensive Mandl-Volek treatment, Figure 5.1 shows the idealized temperature and steam quality distributions for steam injection into a formation under idealized conditions noted in the previous paragraph. (Steam quality can be translated into steam (dry) saturation, Sse , in the pore spaces, since the formation water is part of the "wet" steam.) The heated zone, called the "steam zone" hereinafter, encompasses the volume of the rock and fluids heated to steam temperature, Ts regardless of the steam quality. Marx-Langenheim treatment in fact implies that the condensate transfers the sensible heat (to the rock and fluids and the overburden and eae eee LI ft ee co oe eaeHeat Loss nnacreerase ad Heat Loss U Steam 500 Temp. (F) Reservoir Qo 0 | Steam Quality, 50) { n | 106 ; Key Assumptions * No Gravity Effects P Entire Thickness Heated to Steam Temperature | No Hot Water Flow Ahead of Condensation Front - “Homogeneous Sands and Shale { “No Pressure Drop u “Constant Injection Rate Figure 5.1 Schematic representation of the Merx-Lengenhelm model for reservoir heating by steam injection,5.4 underburden) over an "infinitesimal" distance, which constitutes the so-called condensation front. Consequently, the condensate leaves the condensation front at the reservoir temperature, TR. Under conditions described above, a heat balance, at any time, t, gives Heat injection = Heat loss rate to the overburden + Heating rate of the rock and rate ‘and underburden fluids to temperature, Ts or = +d ca For steam injection at a rate of ig, B/D (kg/s) (water equivalent), the beat injection rate in BTU/hr (kJ/s or kW) is: [Ignore 350/24 for SI units) = (Fis ((oy-n) + fly) 1350/24) i, ( cy Ts-Te) + far Ly) oF where fg is quality, fraction; and hy, hp, and Ly are enthalpies, BTU/Ib (kJ/kg), of saturated water, water at reservoir temperature, and vaporization (latent heat respectively. If the formation volumetric heat capacity is Ms BTU/ft3-°F (kJ/m3-°C), then the ee eae ae G=M, 5-7) Gt i Where Vs is the bulk volume of the steam zone. If the heat loss term can be neglected, it is a simple matter to obtain Vas a function of time, Normally this is not so, and the heat loss term must be taken into account, so that the heat balance results in a differential equation. The solution of this equation gives Vs (bulk volume) in cubic feet (m3) as follows: Ve QMBPF ** Tiksge Moo (Ts TH) 64) Here F, is a function of the dimensionless time, tp, as follows: aoe Fy =e" erfe /tp +2 h 1 65) Dae eee eceeeeecmmeeees Jmo { a 5.5 where erfc denotes the complementary error function, and the dimensionless time, tp, is given by =A KnopMop 2 "2 eet (6.6) Here, knob is thermal conductivity of the overburden, in BTU/hr -ft-°F (kW/m-°C); Mob is the heat capacity of the overburden and Ms that of the heated sand, both in BTU/f3-°F (ki/m3.°C); t is time in hours (seconds in SI), and by is gross thickness, in ft (m). We often use steamflood time in years, so please remember to convert to hours (sec) to calculate tp, Figure 5.2 gives a plot of F, vs. tp, which can be used to obtain Fj. Some engineers may find tabulated values convenient so these are given in Table 5.1. Many mathematical approximations of the first term in the expression for Fj are available in handbooks of mathematical functions, which can be used to obtain an exact value for F}. ‘Van Lookeren (5.3) gives the following approximation for F), which has a maximum error of less than 3%: tp’ to Fie Tyas Vp (5.2) ‘Steam Zone Growth Rate Notice that oF; to are erfe Vp = Fy Co ‘The function Fz is useful for calculating steam zone growth rate, which will be used to calculate the oil production rate. It is also useful for calculating the critical time in the ‘Mandl-Volek treatment. Figure 5.3 shows a plot of Fp vs. tp, and tabulated data are given in Table 5.1. ‘Sham Injection Heat Bt The efficiency of heating a formation by steam injection can be expressed as the fraction of the heat injected which remains in the steam zone at a given at a given time: B, = FL b (5.9) Correspondingly, cumulative heat loss is Qioss= 1 - Es = 1- Fi/tp. Itis interesting to note that the heat loss is a function of tp only, which is given by Eq, (5.6). Considering that the thermal properties vary litte from formation to formation, efficiency is primarily a function of time and thickness; Qloss inecreases as t increases, aeAAD MIMIM III IMI IIIS slg uoqoung wyoyuebueq-xz0W - 7°¢ “BTd % ol t ro 10°O 10°O 2/1) 2+ Up9;100,08 Y 5-6'2/9338q,9 = 24 pue {0/99/74 gezse-e gene AACA 33333: se3 SR idzer-e _eeeee ‘a 8303209, Para = Ta suofzoung wroyue6uer 9 xaeH - T°s eTqeLme) ca ma 2140 9,0= ey H 5-8HRROR FUNCTION AND FRESNEL INTEGRALS ERROR FUNCTION AND ITS DERIVATIVE Table 7.1 L . es ety ’ ! 2.00 1.22037 magn 0, 00000 o0o80 a.s0 a ae Haze oasue—(LaTi26 Sess Ht pest { oe e3iee S2z03 a3 oleae Sones { ee Sreasit Hoek OSA CSe83 $2505 : 0.05, 0.05637 19778 055 0, $6932 33663 cer ae Sram sasce , + [ +4 oe Saree 29008 U 5 os S5so03 Gare a0 a0 60305 Govoe ae ae Relies er ( eB te Cee ian i as oe ezrot b4e33 : oa ee Ro5ase sett ; as ss o.g4202 93274 { a8 oe S35; a8 ) oy ae 30st 77093 _ 21 aes este 2204 ah ee oroe oosee ( 0.20 0.70 ere ne l ah on L ce on ¢ as ac3esoe Beat a8 a aR G2esre gosta OTe © he 0.25 0.27632 43902 075 & ad ak ae & a an & oe & & 2s 185980 33500 a & L 0.30 1.00126 0900 © 0.32862 67595 ap ® 3 hoaee shes sone gies & 32 Loess gasio sania sess ea & fl 35 Louies Sills assay basses t 1 0.34 1.00519 56887 0.36936 45293 084 a t 2.35 0.37938 20596 a3 pei ge RE t ' 237 S3os20 shear & f 35 Odoyon Suse gS SeenG Gasla rates JI | ah traiars oroot = las sunap avis © see Saeed 2.40 42439 23550 0.90. sonse asa 0.79690 e124 B ae O:45tee Some =a amass naree oes Sase ( ae Odaree Tele se daaas Saasp eave Trai as Seige dents 33a Sats lige 3esee U aa ocdeeee Sts ake CaO as 713 .7s48 17199 95a. 45761 92546 0. 2009 one7 ( ni ies BaNs Shoes edaaae fOr Stoo { oe teats Siasavt sasee 5a aS L ae S25 t Soars Stir 9s asia sardo,hesass Is003 as Sras)Orsinee.azei? = los, aasas Garry ESD BONG j 0.50 1.00 ery fey CR125 ery Pere Pee Beer pepe SSG RSKSS SSSR EUNES BBV! 5 rE 2a 0, 41510 74974 0, 40684 71315 13992 19368 99966 69570 0, 34392 0, 33647 0, 32912 0. 32186 031470 030764 0. 30067 0, 29381 0, 28704 9, 28037 0.27381 0.26734 43470 0, 26097 83664 25471 30243 24854 83605 0, 24248 44335, 0.23652 11224 9, 23065 83261 0, 22489 58748 0.21923 35317 021367 10145, 0.20820 79868, 0, 20284 406; 019757 980: 0. 19242 173; 018734 23172 0, 18236 99865, 0.17749 41262 0.27271 40821. 0. 16802 91568 0, 16343 86216 0.15994 17077 9, 15453 76130 0, 15022 55027 0, 14600 45107 0.14187 37413, 0.13783 22708, 0.13387 91486 0, 13001 33993, 0, 12623 40239 0.12254 00011 (rel ERROR FUNCTION AND ITS DERIVATIVE erfr 07929 04962 80177 42ns 99465 61062 35866 32972 32 61584 31019 $0696 30124 ‘79902 96704 23276 38429 62029 03990 74269 82860 0.91031 39782 0.91295 $5080 0.91553 38810 0,91805 01041 0.92050 51843, 9.92290 01283, 0.92523 59418 0.92751 36293 0.92973 41930 0, 93189 86327 0.93400 79449, 0, 94191 37153 0.94376 21961, 14556 14366 0,94731 23980 9, 94901 60353, 0, 95067 32958 0, 95228 51198 0.95385 24394 0.95537 61786 0, 95685 72531 0, 95829 65696 0.95969 50256 0.96105 35095, 0, 96237 26999 0, 96365 40654 0196489 78648 0, 96610 51465, (2 wt 2 ’ 2 nr 1.500, 12893 02892 “1 0.11540 38270 152 911195 95356 1530, 10859 63195, 154 0, 10531 30683, 1.55 0.10220 86576 156 0, 09898 19506 157 0, 09593 17995 1158 0, 09295 70461 159 0.09005 65239 2.60 © -0,.08722 90586 Le 0, 08447 34697 162 0.08178 85711 163 0.07917 31730 164 0.07662 60821 1.65 0.07414 61034 Les OL o7173 20405 Ler 6998 26972 Les 0, 06709 6e78l 169 0, 06487 33895 1.70, 0.06271 10405, Ln 0, 06060 86436 Lire 9.95856 s01s7 L75(0,05277 49959 L7& 0.05095 47262 17? 0.04918 74012 178 0.04747 18791, a7 0, 04580 70274 1.90 004419 17233, Le 0, 04262 48543 82 0, 04120 53185 Le 93963 20255, x 3820 38966 1.85 03681 98653 186 tcossay grr Le 90, 03417 98920 Yes 0, 03292 38812 189 0.03170 38307 1.90 0.03052 47404 1a 0, 02938 36241 192 ogee ub 193 9, 02721 14412 194 oLoei7 84752 19 0.02517 96849 1% 9. o2421 41583 Lor 0.02328 09986 198 9.02237 93244 19 002150 62701 0, 02066 69854 (P] 5 a= 0.88622 69255 Table 7.1 err 0, 96620 51465 9. 96727 67481, ©, 96041 34969 0, 96951 62091 0, 97058 56899 0.97162 27333, 0, 97262 81220 9, 97360 26275 0: 97454 70093, 0.97546 20158 9. 97634 $3833 0 6836 foase 28397 1795 0, 98315 25869 0, 98379 04586 0, 98440 70075 9500 26274 557 84998 0: $5ei3 45930 0, 98667 16712 0, 98719 02752 0, 98769 09422 9, 98817 41959 0 98864 05487 6, 98909 os01e 95994 3508 0, 99034 68052 0, 99073 59476 0,.99111 10301 0, 99147 24883 ay yous O7476 0.99215 62228 0, 99247 93184 279 04292 0599308 99396 0.99337 62251 0.99365 56502 0,99392 25709 0.99417 93336 0.99482 62755, 0, 99466 37246 ©, 99489 20004 0.99511 14232 0, 99532 27650 re Slo J Bw ee coc oo oS tw ets ts Ls Ww5. and decreases as hy increases. As a result, steam injection into very thin formations is. often ill-advised, since the heat loss may be prohibitive, PERT ‘The principal shortcoming of Marx and Langenheim's model, aside from neglecting sravity effects, is thatthe steam injected must supply the latent heat contained in the newly invaded formation as well as make up for heat loss to adjacent formations. So long as the latent heat injection rate is greater than the rate of its consumption in this manner, the Marx- Langenheim model holds. However, ata certain time, which Mandl-Volek call the critical time, this ceases to be so, and allowance must be made for convective heat transport by hot water ahead of the condensation front... (Recall that in the Marx-Langenbeim formulation such convective transport of the hot water was neglected, and total steam condensation, as well as cooling of the condensate to the reservoir temperature, was assumed to occur at the front.) Critical Time Mandl and Volek (5.2) first recognized this situation and obtained the following set of equations which can be used to determine the critical time, te, in hours: Fy, = eerfe Ving = ae (5.10) the dimensionless critical time, the, is given by = AknobMos te. 2 “y2 Me bt (an | Mibtp | | 4 Knob Mob ' (5.12) and the ratio of latent to sensible heat, B, is (5.13) ‘The procedure to calculate the critical time, to, using this equation is: 1. Calculate B from Equation (5.13) 2. Calculate F2- from Equation (5.10) 3, Determine “"D from Table 5.1 or Figure 5.3 4, Calculate t, in hours from Equation (5.12) and convert to years if desired{ : S.M. Faroug alt L 920302 Mandi=Volek Equation = OM, ns fo 1) _. ff Sib VO= MoT fsa Pes bees) ee | mania fe WT, -T,)| dp, a, o~toe pet , { “dt MC, al(- a * skits ered E hy tgg = 2800) fo=tae fale q ygto toe 2+ eye lad TD ay, “Gr must be positive. If not e"erfeyip is not accurate enough. Approximation for toc 1 D - : fine x= TO aT0aT ine Then, solve 0.3480242x ~0.0958798x" +0.7478556x* [ for x, which is then used to calculate tpc. The actual time te is given by Me, { aM, os “ Approximation tor C*etfeVip, The above expression is based upon the following approximation eerfcalty =a,x+a,x7+a,x°+ ec, where |e]S2.5x10", and 1 rt X= TH O4108T Yt" L a1 = 0.3480242, az = -0.0958798, a3 = 0.7478556.A better approximation is eM erfeslty = a,x+ a,x" + a,x" +0,x" +a,x° +e", where fe] S1.5%107, m= x(aitagxtagxttagxd+asxt) Test value: fm x(arte (aztx (agtx(aqtasx)))) tp = 0.5 and F2 = 0.5231566164 1 Fi = 0,3210411772 *"T 703275911 yt and a; = 0.254829592, az = -0.284496736, a3 = 1.421413741, aq = -1.453152027, as = 1.061405429 5 to Lo co 5128 iwo ul 2 - “ a z 2 8 a = 4 Fig. 5.4 - Mandl-Volek function F3. 0.01 0.02 - 0.01 4 morgouna Ye TOA~TONWNSIA = 4152 h? F, in f° = 0,0953h? F, in Aceft We need to calculate tp and~‘tp to obtain F, from Fig. 5.2 or Table 5.1. 4-12.42 t 2 0.164 + ¢ in ours) i ht = 1442 + if t is in years i The results for Vs are given in Table 5.2. We usually express the steam zone volume as Aceft rather than £3. The first step in solving the Mandl-Volek equation is to find the ratio Band factor Fact From Table 5.1 or Figure 5.3, “tp; = 1.2280 tpe= 1.49, The critical time is then calculated by rearranging Equation (5.6). ibis 1350 ** Fikvop Mop 1.49 1 2 Fa + FEE ag 7 900103: years ‘The Mandl-Volek solution at times less than the critical time is identical to the Marx- Langenheim solution. At times greater than the critical, the equation is the same except we use F3 from Figure 5.4. (B was calculated above.) V, = 0.0953 h? F; Act Please note in Table 5.2 that the steam zone volume of a 10-ft-thick zone after 6 years is only 20% of that in a 100-ft-thick zone according to the Marx-Langenheim calculation, and 14% for Mandl-Volek. In the 100-ft-thick case the actual time is less than the critical time, so the Marx-Langenheim equation is used for both calculations. ae G5 (Gas) ee co fesse eee (ee