Steam Propane Injection Simulation For H

Journal of Earth Energy Science, Engineering, and Technology, Vol. 5, No.
1, 2022
URL: https://trijurnal.lemlit.trisakti.ac.id/jeeset, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25105/jeeset.v5i1.9461
Received: 14 June 2021, Accepted: 1 December 2021, Published: 3 January 2022
Steam-Propane Injection Simulation for Heavy Oil

(Simulasi Injeksi Steam-Propana Untuk Minyak Berat)
Astra A. Pramana1* and M. Ilham Ramdhani1
1
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Universitas Pertamina, Jakarta, Indonesia
Abstract
This research is about steam-propane injection simulation for heavy oil with the aim of simulating steam-propane EOR to
increase oil recovery. By knowing the effect of different injection rates, the best scenario of different injection types can be
described. The method used is reservoir modeling using CMG STARS software. The results show that for production that only
relies on natural depletion (primary recovery) for 10 years of production, only 7% recovery from OOIP is obtained and when
steam-propane injection is added, oil recovery is 60-70%. For the use of different injection rates, it is known that the higher
the injection rate, the faster it will reach peak production and an increase in oil recovery. The best recovery method in this
case is scenario 4 with case of steam-propane injection with horizontal production wells. The advantage of using additional
propane injection is to accelerate peak production and increase the recovery factor...
Keywords: Steam Flood; Propane; Horizontal Production Well; Oil Recovery; Peak Production
Sari
Penelitian ini tentang simulasi injeksi steam-propana untuk minyak berat dengan tujuan mensimulasikan EOR uap-propana
untuk meningkatkan perolehan minyak. Dengan mengetahui pengaruh laju injeksi yang berbeda, skenario terbaik dari jenis-
jenis injeksi yang berbeda dapat digambarkan. Metode yang digunakan adalah pemodelan reservoir menggunakan software
CMG STARS. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa untuk produksi yang hanya mengandalkan pengurasan alami (primary
recovery) selama 10 tahun produksi hanya diperoleh 7% recovery dari OOIP dan ketika ditambahkan injeksi steam-propane,
recovery minyak adalah 60-70%. Untuk penggunaan laju injeksi yang berbeda diketahui bahwa semakin tinggi laju injeksi
maka akan semakin cepat mencapai puncak produksi dan peningkatan perolehan minyak. Metode perolehan terbaik dalam
hal ini adalah skenario 4 dengan kasus injeksi steam-propane dengan sumur produksi horizontal. Keuntungan menggunakan
injeksi propana tambahan adalah untuk mempercepat produksi puncak dan meningkatkan faktor perolehan.
Kata-kata kunci: Pembanjiran Uap; Propana; Sumur Produksi Horizontal; Perolehan Minyak; Produksi Puncak
*Corresponding author
E-mail: agus.prama@gmail.com
I. INTRODUCTION order to minimize steam mobility and lower the

The decline of Indonesia's oil productivity is gravity override. As a result, this combination is
mostly due to the existing matured fields that have expected to displace the cold oil at the bottom,
been producing for more than 30 years. Using the increasing the recovery factor [6].
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) technology is one of
the methods to increase oil production. Because of II. METHODS
the type of fluid in the reservoir, which is heavy oil The reservoir simulation software is a tool to
with a depth of less than 3000 feet, steam flood generate reservoir models and simulate them. The
(steam injection) was chosen as one of the EOR simulation is run to analyze how the production rate
procedures. As a result, the team is utilized to heat and recovery factor differ in each case carried out
the reservoir and lower the oil viscosity. Steam is and to determine the optimum results [7, 8]. The
converted to hot water once it has been transferred, simulation is run under the assumption of
which improves the sweep efficiency and allows continuous injection, which indicates that the steam
more oil to be produced [1-4]. will be injected continuously from the start until the
Gravity override occurs when steam is injected end of the specified time, using the inverted five-
into a reservoir, causing a steam chest to form at the spot model scheme (1 injection well, 4 production
top of the reservoir due to its lower density, After wells) as an initial base model [9-12].
that the oil is drained downward, heating the lower The evaluation of oil recovery after and before
reservoir. Hot water, which is more viscous than steam-propane injection is utilized as the basis of the
steam, becomes the driving force in displacing hot analysis. The graph is analyzed to see how effective
oil at the reservoir's very bottom. Figure 1 shows the model is in terms of oil recovery from a given
how the near-bottom oil was skipped [5]. The use of period [13, 14]. The procedure used to conduct this
propane was initially investigated by Redford in study is shown in Figure 2. The steps consist of:
eISSN: 2614-0268 1 pISSN: 2615-3653
Journal of Earth Energy Science, Engineering, and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022
1. Data Collection: The first step in the process is to 4. When the model has been created, the base case
collect data and information that will be used as is used as a starting point for comparisons before
supporting materials. and after the injection, and the case scenario is the
2. Reservoir rock and fluid properties: reservoir rock creation of this base case model to determine the
and fluid properties are selected as initial reservoir model's efficiency and correctness.
conditions as input for the reservoir simulation 5. Conclusion: When the model is based on scenario
software. development and has produced an accurate and
3. Modeling: construct a reservoir model that efficient scenario, the final conclusion on the data
appears like it's in the field using data that has analysis approach is reached.
already been collected.
Figure 1. Steamflood mechanism between two vertical wells (Hong, 1994)
Start
Data Collection and Processing:

Rock and Fluid Properties
Reservoir Modeling
Not Match
History
Matching
Match
Scenarios:
1. Base Case
2. Pure Steam – Vertical Production Well
3. Pure Steam – Horizontal Production Well
4. Steam Propane – Vertical Production Well
5. Steam Propane – Horizontal Production Well
Finish
Figure 2. Research Procedure

eISSN: 2614-0268 2 pISSN: 2615-3653
III. RESULTS 3.2 Scenarios

3.1 Reservoir Model 3.2.1 Base Case
The case model used is based on a software This base case simulation was run to see what the
template with changed reservoir and fluid original conditions were before the EOR method
parameters that are similar to those of San Ardo field was developed. The model comprises four
[14]. A 3D Cartesian model with 10-acre inverted production wells (no injection well) that rely solely
five spots located at a depth of 1900 feet and a on reservoir power to generate oil (primary
reservoir thickness of 115 feet is used as the basic recovery).
scenario. Layers 1 to 3 contain various types of shale Figure 5 shows that after being produced
rock, whereas layers 4 to 12 contain sandstone. In naturally for 10 years (3650 days) the primary
addition, two types of well models vertical and depletion happens from an initial pressure of 845
horizontal production wells were tested as shown in psia to 120 psia within 10 years.
Figure 4.
Figure 3. Vertical and horizontal well systems for production wells.
Figure 4. Inverted 5-spot injection patern in 3D
eISSN: 2614-0268 3 pISSN: 2615-3653

Figure 5. Oil Rate, Cumulative Oil, and Recovery Factor of Natural Depletion (Base Case)
3.2.2 Continuous steam injection after natural producer is created horizontally as given in Figure 7.
depletion
The purpose of this simulation is to observe and 3.2.3 Continuous steam-propane Injection after
analyze the performance of steam flooding natural depletion
production after natural depletion, as well as to The purpose of this simulation is to assess and
determine which approach is best for obtaining big determine the impact of adding propane to steam
amounts of oil. Then several steam injection injection to increase oil production and recovery.
methods, which use an inverted five-spot pattern and Production wells are used vertically and horizontally
injects continuously with two types of production in this scenario. In this simulation, the steam-to-
wells: vertical and horizontal. The results are propane injection ratio is 5:100. This ratio is used
observed to find the best technique for the same field because it is a ratio that has been obtained by several
conditions that have a heavy oil nature. The initial researchers. The analysis was carried out to
natural depletion approach in the case 1-2 scenario investigate the effect of steam injection with
is steam quality 80% and steam temperature 300 oC propane, by using the same model to perform three
(572 oF) injected for 16.5 years and produced for different injection rates and then analyzing the oil
7300 days (20 years) with a natural production start production performance.
of 1300 days (3.5 years) as shown in Figure 6. Case 3 is the same as case 1 in the early stages
It was carried out for 1300 days since it is visible of natural depletion production for 1300 days, then
from the production limit of the base model, which injected with steam injection rates of 300, 600, and
is 10 bbl/day assuming one well can produce 2.5 900 BWPD with steam quality 80% and 300 oC (572
o
bbl/day. Steam and steam-propane injection F). In this case, propane-steam are combined
methods were utilized after reaching the new limit. injected for 16.5 years and produced for 7300 days
In case 1 (vertical producer), steam injection is (20 years) with a natural production start of 1300
carried out at rate of 300, 600, and 900 BWPD with days (3.5 years) as depicted in Figure 8.
a constant injection pressure of 1000 psi. Case 2 is Case 4, is similar to Case 2, natural depletion
the same as that of case 1 in terms of natural was carried out for 1300 days to the limit of the
depletion production for the first 1300 days. The production rate of 10 bbl/day, then injected with
steam is then injected with steam injection rates of steam injection rates of 300, 600, and 900 BWPD
300, 600, and 900 BWPD with steam quality 80% with steam quality 80% and 300 oC (572 oF). In this
and temperature of 300 oC (572 oF). The production case, propane-steam is injected together, and
well differs between case 1 and case 2, with case 2 subsequently, steam and propane are injected for
using natural production starting for the first 3.5 16.5 years continuously and produced for 20 years
years before being injected for the next 16.5 years. (7300 days). In this case, four producers are made
Case 2 produced for a total of 20 years from horizontally using an age configuration as shown in
horizontal wells. With a well configuration, the Figure 9.
eISSN: 2614-0268 4 pISSN: 2615-3653

Injection Cumulative Oil Recovery Factor

Rate, bwpd @7300 days, STB @7300 days, %
300 285862 51.76
600 283916 51.4
900 334488 60.6
Figure 6. Oil Rate, Cumulative Oil, and Recovery Factor of Scenario 2

300 281286 51
600 371322 67.23
900 393988 71.3

300 294166 53.3
600 388005 70.23
900 418767 75.8

300 351549 63.65
600 410996 74.4
900 432964 78.4
eISSN: 2614-0268 5 pISSN: 2615-3653

IV. DISCUSSION Table 1 indicates the relationship between

Following that, conduct an analysis based on the recovery factor vs injection rate, as well as peak
simulation graph. Then a comparison is made production vs injection rate. Injection of 300, 600,
between the cumulative oil production from and 900 bwpd followed by vertical and horizontal
vertically and horizontally production well using producer types in comparison of cumulative oil,
different solely steam injection or steam-propane peak production time, and recovery factor for 4
injection, with the injection rates of 300, 600, and cases. The following is a summary of the
900 bwpd to see the injection impacts. For the first comparison between each case scenario:
20 years of production, only steam and steam with 1. The recovery factor increases for varied solely
propane were used. The speed of fluid injection steam injection rates.
injected into the well has a significant impact on the 2. Despite the significant difference in the
performance of oil production by the injection of recovery factor between each case, it can be
simply steam or steam with propane. The observed that the employing propane accelerates
force/effect of the oil viscosity which is dominated peak oil production when steam with propane is
by steam-propane is particularly influential on how injected into both vertical and horizontal producing
much is injected due to the near distance between wells.
injector wells and producer wells. The more oil Because it is known in the simulation that steam-
obtained, the higher the injection rate. propane injection can accelerate peak oil production,
Each case received 300 bwpd injectors to a balance between peak production acceleration and
demonstrate the low steam injection. Figure 10 steam-propane injection rate must be determined,
depicts the evolution of the oil production rate over because if the rate balance does not take into
20 years. Because of the low steam injection account, it can affect the breakthrough speed which
interaction influence between propane and reservoir has an impact on the oil sweep in the reservoir as
fluid grew, and first increase in steam-propane shown in Table 1.
rather than using simply steam was detected, before Based on vertical and horizontal producer wells
reaching the peak of peak production in each case. produced for 20 years using solely steam and steam
When comparing the injection rate of 900 bwpd to a with propane injection, Table 1 compares each
rate of 600 bwpd, it appears that some have an instance for cumulative oil, peak production, and
impact on peak production. In this case, the peak oil recovery factor. There are various cases when there
production time for vertical steam is 2 percent are two peak productions, this occurs as the viscosity
longer than horizontal steam's peak oil is 13 percent of the oil reduces and the oil becomes more mobile
longer. Vertical steam-propane is 2 percent faster resulting in the second peak production being higher
and experiences peak production 2 (two) times and than the first peak production.
horizontal steam-propane is 3 percent faster as
shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Oil Rate, Steam-Propane Injection of 300, 600, and 900 bwpd Cases 1- 4
eISSN: 2614-0268 6 pISSN: 2615-3653

Tabel 1. Cumulative Oil, Recovery Factor, and Peak Production Time
Peak Production
Cumulative Oil, Oil Recovery
Case Time, days
STB Factor, %
First Second
Natural Depletion 38222 7 - 28
Vertical Production Well, Steam Injection Rate
285862 51.76 3126 -
of 300 bwpd
Horizontal Production Well, Steam Injection
281286 51 2972 -
Rate of 300 bwpd
Vertical Production Well, Steam-Propane
294166 53.3 2829 -
Injection Rate of 300 bwpd
Horizontal Production Well, Steam-Propane
351549 63.65 2930 2975
283916 51.4 3067 -
of 600 bwpd
371322 67.2 3016 3307
Rate of 600 bwpd
388005 70.2 2742 2755
410996 74.4 2639 -
334488 60.6 3067 3187
of 900 bwpd
393988 71.3 2690 2825
Rate of 900 bwpd
418767 75.8 2920 3930
432964 78.4 2769 -
V. CONCLUSIONS 184988-PA, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 596–617.

Only 7% recovery factor is reached after ten https://doi.org/10.2118/184988-PA
years of primary recovery production, but when [4] Simangunsong, R.A. and Mamora, D.D. 2006.
steam-propane injection is added, oil recovery Experimental and Analytical Modeling Studies
increases to 50-70 percent. Furthermore, horizontal of Steam Injection with Hydrocarbon Additives
producer wells can increase recovery by 5-12 to Enhance Recovery of San Ardo Heavy Oil.
percent. The best recovery scenario is Case 4 which Petroleum Society of Canada, PETSOC-2006-
combined horizontal production wells with steam- 151, presented at the Canadian International
propane injection rate of 900 bwpd. The higher the Petroleum Conference, June 13–15.
injection rate, the faster the system will attain peak https://doi.org/10.2118/2006-151
production and increase oil recovery. [5] Hong, K.C. 1994. Steamflood Reservoir
Management: Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery,
REFERENCES PennWell Books, Tulsa.
[1] Abdurrahman, M., Permadi, A.K., Bae, W.S. [6] Pramana, A.A., 2018. EOR Thermal: Metode
and Masduki, A. 2017. EOR in Indonesia: Past, Pendesakan Minyak Berat dengan Pemanasan.
Present, and Future. Int. J. Oil, Gas and Coal Perdana Publishing, Medan.
Technology, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.250–270. [7] Panjaitan, A.T, Sudibjo, R., and Fenny, S. 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJOGCT.2017.087024 Evaluasi Keekonomian Pengembangan
[2] Jannoke, L., Budi,I.S., and Pramana, A.A. Lapangan Gas Y Dengan Simulasi Reservoir.
2020. Simulation Study of Hot Waterflood and Journal of Earth Energy Science, Engineering,
WASP Injection Post Mature Steamflood. and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 114-118.
Journal of Earth Energy Science, Engineering, https://doi.org/10.25105/jeeset.v1i3.4685
and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 34-39. [8] Varayesi, F., Rohmana, R.C, Mudhoffar, R.,
https://doi.org/10.25105/jeeset.v3i2.7600 and, Iskandar, I.N.E.N. 2021. The Effect of the
[3] Polanco, A.M., Johnston, K., Richardson, Drainage Area on Well and Reservoir
W.D., Schoeggl, F.F., Zhang, Y, Yarranton, Performance. Journal of Earth Energy Science,
H.W., and Taylor, S.D. 2018. Phase Behavior Engineering, and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.
of Heavy-Oil/Propane Mixtures. SPEJ., SPE- 113-116.
eISSN: 2614-0268 7 pISSN: 2615-3653
[9] Mamora, D.D., Rivero, J.A., and Hendroyono,

A. 2003. Experimental and Simulation Studies
of Steam-Propane Injection for the Hamaca and
Duri Fields. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
SPE-84201-MS, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, October
5–8.
https://doi.org/10.2118/84201-MS
[10] Venturini, G.J. and Mamora, D.D. 2003.
Simulation Studies of Steam-Propane Injection
for the Hamaca Heavy Oil Field. Petroleum
Society of Canada, PETSOC-2003-056,
presented at the Canadian International
Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June.
https://doi.org/10.2118/2003-056
[11] Srochviksit, S. and Maneeintr, K. 2016.
Simulation on Heavy Oil Production from
Steam-Flooding", ICIEA, MATEC Web of
Conferences 6 , 07002, pp. 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/2016680700
2
[12] Munoz, J.E.S. 2004. A Simulation Study of
Steam and Steam-Propane Injection Using a
Novel Smart Horizontal Producer to Enhance
Oil Production. MS Thesis, Texas A&M
University.
[13] Dehghan, A., Sola, B.S., Naderifar, A., and
Gholampour, E. 2013. An Investigation on the
Effects of the Reservoir Variables and
Operational Parameters on Steam-Propane
Injection Performance. Petroleum Science and
Technology, Vol 31, No. 17, pp. 1778-1789.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2010.551244
[14] Mamora, D.D. and Sandoval, J.E. 2005.
Investigation of a Smart Steamflood Pattern to
Enhance Production from San Ardo Field,
California. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
SPE-95491-MS, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, October.
https://doi.org/10.2118/95491-MS
eISSN: 2614-0268 8 pISSN: 2615-3653

Steam Propane Injection Simulation For H

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steam Propane Injection Simulation For H

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Earth Energy Science, Engineering, and Technology, Vol. 5, No.

Steam-Propane Injection Simulation for Heavy Oil

I. INTRODUCTION order to minimize steam mobility and lower the

Figure 1. Steamflood mechanism between two vertical wells (Hong, 1994)

Data Collection and Processing:

Figure 2. Research Procedure

III. RESULTS 3.2 Scenarios

Figure 3. Vertical and horizontal well systems for production wells.

Figure 4. Inverted 5-spot injection patern in 3D

eISSN: 2614-0268 3 pISSN: 2615-3653

eISSN: 2614-0268 4 pISSN: 2615-3653

Injection Cumulative Oil Recovery Factor

300 285862 51.76

600 283916 51.4

900 334488 60.6

Figure 6. Oil Rate, Cumulative Oil, and Recovery Factor of Scenario 2

Injection Cumulative Oil Recovery Factor

600 371322 67.23

900 393988 71.3

Figure 7. Oil Rate, Cumulative Oil, and Recovery Factor of Scenario 3

Injection Cumulative Oil Recovery Factor

300 294166 53.3

600 388005 70.23

900 418767 75.8

Figure 8. Oil Rate, Cumulative Oil, and Recovery Factor of Scenario 4

Injection Cumulative Oil Recovery Factor

300 351549 63.65

600 410996 74.4

900 432964 78.4

Figure 9. Oil Rate, Cumulative Oil, and Recovery Factor of Scenario 5

eISSN: 2614-0268 5 pISSN: 2615-3653

IV. DISCUSSION Table 1 indicates the relationship between

eISSN: 2614-0268 6 pISSN: 2615-3653

Tabel 1. Cumulative Oil, Recovery Factor, and Peak Production Time

V. CONCLUSIONS 184988-PA, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 596–617.

[9] Mamora, D.D., Rivero, J.A., and Hendroyono,

eISSN: 2614-0268 8 pISSN: 2615-3653

You might also like