170 Unconventional Methods for Geoscience, Shale Gas and Petroleum in the 21st Century

J. Watada et al. (Eds.)

© 2023 The Authors.
This article is published online with Open Access by IOS Press and distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0).
doi:10.3233/AERD230016

Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic

Steam Injection in Fractured Shale
Formation
Ahmad Haziq AZMI, Juhairi Aris Muhamad SHUHLI, Muhammad Luqman HASAN
Petroleum Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,
32610, Seri Iskandar, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia
haziqazmi94@gmail.com; juhairi.shuhli@utp.edu.my; luqman.hasan@utp.edu.my

Abstract. The movement of hydrocarbon in a shale formation is restricted due to

the ultra-low permeability. The ultra-low permeability usually creates capillary
entrapment due to high capillary pressure. Fracturing was introduced in shale
formation which creates more cross-sectional area of flow for the oil to be
produced from shale formation. Another approach to increase the flow of
hydrocarbon is by decreasing the viscous force via the mean of viscosity reduction.
The ability of Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) in recovering light oil from
ultra-low permeability shale was not thoroughly studied. This case study studied
the potential of injecting cyclic steam into a fractured shale formation in the
variation of steam qualities and fracture configurations. The simulation study
incorporated data obtained from Bakken and Eagle Ford Shale Formation to ensure
a representable dynamic model. The simulation study had been conducted using
in-house commercial software by constructing a dual permeability synthetic model
due to stark contrast of matrix and fractures permeability. Manual numerical
computation was incorporated in the model to assess the dependency of relative
permeability oil in the event of change in reservoir temperature which was the case
since the simulation covered Thermal EOR. Fracture half-length was determined
as the most sensitive factor in contributing to increase in oil recovery among all
the fracture properties. Significant recovery of additional 46 % in oil production
for the most optimum case had been observed after incorporating recovery
mechanisms of thermal expansion, wettability alteration and interfacial tension
(IFT) reduction in the simulation. The amount of recovery increased from 1000
MSTB to 1460 MSTB when fracture half-length of 400 ft. and steam quality of 0.4
was used.

Keywords: Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery; Shale Oil; Cyclic Steam Injection,
Wettability Alteration, Viscosity Reduction, Relative Permeability, Steam Quality,
Matrix Porosity, Matrix Permeability, Fracture Permeability, Fracture Half-
Length, Fracture Spacing.

1. Introduction

EOR generally could be classified into Chemical, Thermal, Microbial and Miscible [1].
Due to cost and technical constraint in Chemical and Microbial EOR respectively,
Thermal EOR seemed to be the most viable and economical for unconventional
reservoir application. Ironically, thermal recovery was usually used to produce viscous
heavy oil, while the oil viscosity in shale oil reservoirs were low. Some researchers
described that the mechanism to reduce shale oil viscosity from thermal methods would
have insignificant effect to the recovery. Furthermore, there were no large-scale light
 A.H. Azmi et al. / Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic Steam Injection 171

oil projects to be used as reference for laboratory and simulation design purposes since
the mechanisms involved in this process were much less understood due to the
complexities of the flow [2-5]. Besides viscosity reduction, Thermal EOR also utilized
several recovery mechanisms during the process including wettability alteration,
interfacial tension (IFT) reduction and thermal expansion (reduction in density
promotes gravity aid) which also contributed to higher oil sweep and displacement
efficiency [5, 6].

2. Preliminaries

Shale oil production faced more challenges compared to shale gas production as most
of the oil remained unrecoverable even after applying the costly horizontal well
combined with multiple hydraulic fractures due to drastic decline in the oil rate and
reservoir pressure [7]. Shale gas production did not encounter the similar predicament
because natural gas is highly compressible rendering a successful pressure
maintenance. The ultra-low shale permeability tends to degrade any flooding process
effectiveness and had necessitated an attempt to use EOR. The ultra-low shale
permeability tends to degrade any flooding process effectiveness and had necessitated
an attempt to use EOR.

2.1. Cyclic Steam Injection

Cyclic steam injection process was divided into three separate phases consisting of
steam injection phase, soaking phase, and production phase [8-10]. For the first step,
wet steam was injected into the wellbore for a period, typically between 10 to 60 days.
In this case study, the soaking period was made constant for 30 days. The quality of the
steam was usually around 60–85%. Steam quality is the ratio of the mass of vapor to
the total mass mixtures. Steam quality of 1 signifies saturated vapor and 0 signifies
saturated water. In the soaking phase, the well would be shut in and the heat was
allowed to dissipate into the formation. The dissipation of heat is responsible to cause
alteration in rock and fluid properties to make the properties more favorable. After a
certain period of shut in, usually varies from 10 days to few months, the well would be
re-opened for production and this phase was called as the production phase.
This EOR process is an effective and low risk recovery option because the
injection only involved single well, thus well-to-well connectivity was not required.
Well-to-well connectivity is important especially in a shale formation where the
permeability is ultra-low. Long time will be required if the steam were to be injected
from an injector to producer. Furthermore, the existing and induced fractures in shale
formation had provided large contact area for injected steam to penetrate and diffuse
into low permeability matrix. The fracture system also provided the pathways for the
treated oil to be produced at shorter payback period.

2.2. Thermal EOR Recovery Mechanisms

Thermal EOR utilized several mechanisms including wettability alteration, IFT

reduction and thermal expansion to improve oil recovery as illustrated in Figure 1. The
172 A.H. Azmi et al. / Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic Steam Injection

main limiting factors in recovering the oil from shale was due to the capillarity and
adsorption phenomenon whereas the recovery mechanisms involved in Thermal EOR
might have the ability to counter these constraints [11].

Fig. 1. Thermal EOR Recovery Mechanism [5]

Shale formation studied in this case was an oil-wet system consisting of organic-
rich rock which produced hydrocarbon while absorbing heat. Oil-wet matrix would
have negative capillary pressure thus, the steam vapors requires more force to
overcome the capillary barrier and invade the rock matrix to displace the adsorbed oil.
From laboratory experiment, this phenomenon would take place around temperature of
390°F where wettability of the matrix would be altered gradually from oil-wet to water-
wet [12]. As the temperature was increased, the displacement process started as the
calcium carbonate which had a strong water-wet characteristic started to precipitated
out of the synthetic brine [13]. As a result, the pore surfaces became water wet and
desorption of organic components from the matrix surfaces occurred. The oil recovery
increased from approximately 10% to nearly 50% due to the mechanism [14]. The
interfacial tension declined as the temperature increased. This phenomenon could be
represented by reduction in the relative permeability of water and the increment of the
relative permeability of oil. This result was supported by the experimental work which
indicated that the IFT of the system decreased as the temperature increased at each
experimental pressure [15, 16].
While temperature influenced the endpoint saturations, the shape of the curves did
not change [17]. As relative permeability of oil increased, the mobility of oil would be
increased resulting in lower mobility ratio which indicated that oil had better ability to
flow. Therefore, introducing temperature-dependent relative permeability data to the
reservoir model would result in realistic and greater oil recovery. Typical steam
injection would increase the temperature of formation from 100 to 400°F. Several
thermal expansion tests revealed that the pure oil expansion in the core sample resulted
in recovery of approximately 12 to 18% of oil in place, if there were no other recovery
processes applied. During steam injection process, both the matrix minerals and pore
 A.H. Azmi et al. / Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic Steam Injection 173

saturating fluids were heated and would expand [16, 18]. Thus, the combined effects of
both expansions resulted in differential thermal expansion which determined the
volume of fluid expelled from the matrix.
The oil expansion mechanism could be quite significant where oil saturations were
high with nearby fracture network as the oil could be expelled directly into the fracture.
On the other hand, the matrix expansion mechanisms were independent of oil gravity,
making thermal EOR an attractive recovery process even in fractured light oil. This
process would also contribute to a higher recovery of oil which was further enhanced
by wettability alteration at high temperature.

2.3. Temperature Dependent Relative Permeability

The relative permeability was a dimensionless quantity representing the ratio of

effective permeability to absolute permeability controlled by pore geometry of rock,
wettability characteristics, fluid saturation and saturation history. Any changes of the
following properties, would change the relative permeability curves [17]. The
derivation of the relative-permeability equations in this project follows the approach
used by Wyllie and Gardner. The analytical derivations produce the following
equations.
ௌೢ ିௌೢ೔ (ଶାଷఈ)/ఈ
݇௥௪ = ቀ ቁ (1)
ଵିௌೢ೔

ௌೢ ିௌೢ೔ ଶ ௌ ିௌ (ଶାఈ)/ఈ
ೢ ೢ೔
݇௥௢ = ቂ1 − ቀ ቁቃ × ൤1 − ቀ ଵିௌ ቁ ൨ (2)
ଵିௌೢ೔ ೢ೔

The water and oil relative permeability might be expressed as a function of water
saturation (Sw), and irreducible water saturation (Swi) where α was the index of pore-
size distribution.
݇௥௪ = ݇௥௪ (ܵ௪ , ܵ௪௜ ) & ݇௥௢ = ݇௥௢ ሺܵ௪ , ܵ௪௜ ሻ (3)

Using the chain rule of differentiation and dividing with dT to find the changes
with respect to temperature, the equation might be expressed in following form.
ௗ௞ೝೢ డ௞ೝೢ ௗௌ డ௞ ௗௌೢ೔
ௗ்
=ቀ
డௌೢ
ቁ ቀ ௗ்ೢ ቁ + ቀ డௌೝೢ ቁ ቀ ௗ்
ቁ (4)
ௌೢ೔ ೢ೔ ௌೢ

ௗ௞ೝ೚ డ௞ೝ೚ ௗௌ డ௞ ௗௌೢ೔

ௗ்
=ቀ
డௌೢ ௌ
ቁ ቀ ௗ்ೢ ቁ + ቀడௌ ೝ೚ቁ ቀ ௗ்
ቁ (5)
ೢ೔ ௌೢ
ೢ೔

Water was assumed to be incompressible. Thus, the change in water saturation was
independent of temperature. The final form relating relative permeability and
temperature after taking the partial derivatives of kro and krw with respect to Swi at
constant Sw, were as follow.
ௗ௞ೝೢ ଶାଷఈ ሺௌೢ ିௌೢ೔ ሻ(మశഀ)/ഀ (ଵିௌೢ ) ௗௌೢ೔
= −ቀ ቁ× ሺଵିௌೢ೔ ሻమ(భశమഀ)/ഀ
ቀ ቁ (6)
ௗ் ఈ ௗ்

ௗ௞ೝ೚ ଶାఈ ሺௌೢ ିௌೢ೔ ሻమ/ഀ (ଵିௌೢ )య

= ൜ቀ ቁ×
ሺଵିௌೢ೔ ሻమ(భశమഀ)/ഀ
+ 2 ൤1 −
ௗ் ఈ
ௌೢ ିௌೢ೔ (ଶାఈ)/ఈ (ଵିௌೢ )మ ௗௌೢ೔
ቀ ଵିௌ ቁ ൨ ൠቀ ቁ (7)
ೢ೔ (ଵିௌೢ೔ )య ௗ்
174 A.H. Azmi et al. / Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic Steam Injection

3. Methods

The numerical simulations in this project involved a Dual Permeability Shale Oil
Model generated using the data from the reservoir model description in Table 1.
Numerical simulations were performed using the in-house commercial simulator to
assess the performance of cyclic steam injection and effect of different steam quality
and fracture configurations on shale oil recovery. The model had only a single
horizontal well extending 900ft in ‘I’ direction with planar fractures along the
horizontal section. Assuming that the fracture went 4 layers up and 5 layers down, the
vertical fracture would span from layer 2 to 11 giving a fracture height of 300ft.
Table 1. Reservoir Description

Property Value (unit)

Grid Dimension 55 x 55 x 10
Grid Size (Width & Length) 50 (ft)
Grid Top 950 (ft)
Grid Thickness (for all layers) 30 (ft)
Matrix Porosity 0.03444
Matrix Permeability I & J 0.0001 (mD)
Matrix Permeability K 0.00003 (mD)
Reference Pressure 2500 (psi)
Reservoir Temperature 100 (°F)

Rock, fluid, fracture and thermal properties was verified with data extracted from
Bakken and Eagle Ford Shale. The values were then incorporated into the model based
on the values in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5.
Table 2. Rock Properties

Property Value (unit)

Rock Compressibility 1.0‫ݔ‬10ି଺ (1/psi)
Rock Density 137 (lbm/ft3)
Matrix Thermal Conductivity 4 (Btu/ft.day.°F)
Matrix Thermal Expansion Coefficient 0.0009 (1/°K)
Volumetric Heat Capacity 12 (Btu/݂‫ ݐ‬ଷ . °F)
Initial Oil Saturation 55 (%)
Initial Water Saturation 45 (%)

Table 3. Fluid Properties

Property Value (unit)

Oil Density 38.53 (lbm/ft3)
Water Density 62.4 (lbm/ft3)
Oil Viscosity 6 (cP)
Oil compressibility 2.099x10ିହ (1/psi)
Water Compressibility 2.21x10ି଺ (1/psi)
Oil Thermal Conductivity 2 (Btu/ft.day.°F)
Water Thermal Conductivity 8.6 (Btu/ft.day.°F)
Thermal Expansion Coefficient 0.00072 (1/°K)
Wettability Transition Temperature 350 (°F)
 A.H. Azmi et al. / Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic Steam Injection 175

Table 4. Planar Fracture Properties

Property Value (unit)

Primary Fracture width 0.001 (ft)
Orientation J axis
Fracture Half Length 350 (ft)
Fracture Spacing I & J 50 (ft)
Fracture Spacing K (no ‘k’ fractures) 0 (ft)
Fracture Porosity 0.00004
Fracture Permeability I & J 0.00002 (mD)
Fracture Permeability K 0.00004 (mD)

Table 5. Cyclic Steam Injection

Property Value (unit)
Steam Temperature 400 (°F)
Average Steam Quality 0.2, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.0
Injected Steam Pressure 3000 (psi)
Steam Injection Period 10 (days)
Steam Soaking Period 80 (days)
Number of cycle 3

4. Results & Discussion

4.1. Effect on Relative Permeability

Equations (6) and (7) discussed previously were used to approximate the changes in
relative permeability as temperature was increased from 100°F to 400°F. The changes
in relative permeability curve could be observed in Figure 3.
Relative Permeability Curves @100°F & 400°F
1.0
Relative Permeability

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation

krw@100°F kro@100°F Krw@400°F Kro@400°F

Fig. 2. Comparison between Relative Permeability Curves

176 A.H. Azmi et al. / Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic Steam Injection

Based on the result produced, the effect of increasing temperature had changed the
irreducible water saturation from 0.2 to 0.35. This result was in line with the
assumption that the irreducible water saturation linearly increased as temperature
increased by 0.15 based on Figure 2. The result showed that the intersection changed
from 50% to 65% of Sw which indicated that the wettability was changing from initially
oil-wet shale to water-wet. The increment in irreducible water saturation concluded that
more oil was displaced. The change in irreducible water saturation also showed that the
temperature change had a positive impact on oil sweep efficiency.

4.2. Effect on Interfacial Tension (IFT) & Wettability

In addition, the wettability changes promoted less oil adsorption onto the rock surface
which facilitated the movement of oil through the porous media. This result supported
the statement that the rock wettability was altered gradually, from strong oil-wet to
weak oil-wet or water-wet as the temperature increased [12]. IFT was reduced as the
endpoint of the relative permeability curve was adjusted. Reduction in IFT would
combine the water and oil into near miscible fluid. Miscible fluid had the same ability
to flow represented by same relative permeability endpoint for both fluids. Thus, the oil
would have same ability to flow as water at lower oil saturation. Using the altered
relative permeability curves, the oil recovery was expected to increase as the simulator
was assumed to account for the effect of wettability alteration and IFT reduction during
the cyclic steam injection.

Fig. 3. Temperature vs irreducible water saturation [17]

 A.H. Azmi et al. / Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic Steam Injection 177

4.3. Cyclic Steam Injection

The base case had produced the desired production profile as the production of shale oil
dropped rapidly in real cases even after applying fractures to the horizontal well [1].
After steam injection was implemented in the base model, the injected steam only
traveled a few cells away from the well bore along the length of the hydraulic fracture
and occupied the nearby wellbore region as shown in Figure 4.

Fig. 4. Steam Region (100 0F)

However, the heat from the steam of 400°F traveled further into the reservoir and
affected larger area as illustrated in Figure 5. The result of implementing cyclic steam
injection was tabulated in Table 6.
Table 6. Summary of Comparison between Base Case and Cyclic Injection

Case Cumulative Oil

Base Case 1000 MSTB
Cyclic Steam Injection 1320 MSTB
Increment 32%
178 A.H. Azmi et al. / Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic Steam Injection

Fig. 5. Steam Region (400 0F)

4.4. Steam Quality Uncertainty Analysis

The sensitivity analysis of different steam qualities was conducted to study the
effectiveness of the cyclic steam injection assuming no clay-swelling problem
encountered. The different steam qualities possessed different heat capacity which
would impact heat dissipation differently. in the reservoir. The result of simulations
was summarized in Figure 6.

Fig. 6. Steam Qualities Sensitivity Analysis

Figure 6 indicated that the highest recovery was achieved by injecting steam at the
quality of 0.4. However, this result contradicted with the expected result where steam
quality of 1 was expected to yield highest recovery due higher mobility of vapor. The
justification behind this result was, in the case of higher steam quality, higher
proportion of vapors existed in the steam which led to lower amount of heat energy
transferred to the matrix. This theory was supported by the facts that steam vapors had
 A.H. Azmi et al. / Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic Steam Injection 179

only half of water specific heat capacity with the same temperature change and thermal
conductivity. Cumulative production declined as steam quality was reduced from 0.4.
Since lower steam quality had more liquid phase of water, the injected liquid phase
might not pass through the small pores with ultra-low permeability. Thus, the steam
with lower qualities might only reach the region with larger pores and circulating
around the hydraulic fractures. This proved that the steam qualities should be optimized
not maximized.

4.5. Fracture Configuration Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was conducted using in-house commercial software to test the
effect of different fracture and matrix properties on the oil recovery. 20 cases were
simulated with range of parameters as tabulated in Table 7.
Table 7. Fracture Sensitivity Analysis Parameters

Variable Min Value Max Value

Matrix Porosity 0.04 0.10

Matrix Permeability 0.0001 mD 0.001 mD

Fracture Permeability 1000 mD 30000 mD

Fracture Half-Length 50 ft 400 ft

Fracture Spacing 100 ft 400 ft

The results of the simulation were summarized by Tornado Plot in Figure 7

Fig. 7. Tornado Plot of Fracture Sensitivity Analysis

180 A.H. Azmi et al. / Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic Steam Injection

Based on Figure 7, fracture half-length and fracture spacing were the two most
sensitive parameters with respect to cumulative oil production. This result was
expected as these parameters were strongly related to the density of the fracture
network. Denser fracture network would enhance the steam injection process as the
fractures would extend the reach of the steam into the formation thus the heat would
dissipate further into the formation. Since cyclic injection involved only one well, the
denser fracture network would provide better flow path of the injected steam and the oil
to be produced [8, 19]. The reservoir properties were also tested in the analysis to
observe the suitability of the technique to the type of reservoir. However, the result
suggested that matrix properties had least impact on the cyclic steam injection and the
subsequent oil recovery from the technique.

5. Conclusion

The shale oil reservoir had better oil recovery through cyclic steam injection with the
aid of thermal expansion, IFT reduction and wettability alteration mechanisms. The
optimum steam quality was determined at 0.4 where a balance between heat
conductivity and ability to transmit steam flow through ultra-low shale permeability
was achieved. Fracture spacing had been the most sensitive parameter during the
process since the parameter was strongly related to the density of the fracture network.
Further studies were also suggested to optimize the fracture configurations for the
technique, and study the effectiveness of optimized induced fracture coupled with
steam injection.

References

[1] J. J. Sheng, T. Cook, W. Barnes, F. Mody, M. Watson, M. Porter, et al., "Screening of the EOR
Potential of a Wolfcamp Shale Oil Reservoir," presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers
Conference, 2015.
[2] T. R. Blevins, J. H. Duerksen, and J. W. Ault, "Light-Oil Steamflooding an Emerging Technology,"
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1984/7/1/ 1984.
[3] K. Dehghani and R. Ehrlich, "Evaluation of the Steam-Injection Process in Light-Oil Reservoirs,"
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2001/10/1/ 2001.
[4] M. L. Proctor and S. M. F. Ali, "Steamflooding Light and Moderately Viscous Oil Reservoirs In
Alberta," presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers Conference, 1986.
[5] S. Wu, Z. Zhang, Y. Wu, S. Dehuang, Y. Qian, and F. Qiao, "A Case Study of High-Pressure, Light-Oil
Steam Flooding in A Low-Permeability Reservoir," presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers
Conference, 2010.
[6] W. J. M. Al-Mudhafer, "A Comparative Thermal IOR Simulation Study with Experimental Design for
Optimal Future Performance of a Heterogeneous Light Oil Reservoir," presented at the Society of
Petroleum Engineers Conference, 2013.
[7] T. Jacobs, "Unconventional Resources Will Require Unconventional EOR," Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2015/9/1/ 2015.
[8] C. T. Frenette, M. Saeedi, and J. L. Henke, "Integrated Economic Model for Evaluation and
Optimization of Cyclic Steam Stimulation Projects," presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers
Conference, 2014.
[9] T. D. Gamadi, F. Elldakli, and J. J. Sheng, "Compositional Simulation Evaluation of EOR Potential in
Shale Oil Reservoirs by Cyclic Natural Gas Injection," presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers
Conference, 2014.
[10] K. Revana and M. H. Erdogan, "Optimization of Cyclic Steam Stimulation under Uncertainty,"
presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers Conference, 2007.
 A.H. Azmi et al. / Investigation of Thermal EOR via Cyclic Steam Injection 181

[11] H. Pu and Y. Li, "CO2 EOR Mechanisms in Bakken Shale Oil Reservoirs," presented at the Society of
Petroleum Engineers Conference, 2015.
[12] J. Modaresghazani, R. G. Moore, S. A. Mehta, and M. G. Ursenbach, "Experimental Evaluation of the
Effect of Temperature on Wettability of the Grosmont Carbonate Reservoir in Alberta," presented at the
Society of Petroleum Engineers Conference, 2016.
[13] D. N. Rao, "Wettability Effects in Thermal Recovery Operations," presented at the Society of
Petroleum Engineers Conference, 1996.
[14] A. Wilson, "Tests Investigate Recovery Mechanisms of Steam Injection in Carbonate Reservoir,"
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2013/3/1/ 2013.
[15] D. L. Flock, T. H. Le, and J. P. Gibeau, "The Effect of Temperature on the Interfacial Tension of Heavy
Crude Oils Using the Pendent Drop Apparatus," Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1986/3/1/ 1986.
[16] A. Mollaei and B. Maini, "Steam Flooding of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs: Basic Concepts and
Recovery Mechanisms," Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2010/1/1/ 2010.
[17] K. Nakornthap and R. D. Evans, "Temperature-Dependent Relative Permeability and Its Effect on Oil
Displacement by Thermal Methods," Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1986/5/1/ 1986.
[18] B. T. Hoffman and A. R. Kovscek, "Light-Oil Steamdrive in Fractured Low-Permeability Reservoirs,"
presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers Conference, 2003.
[19] E. Escobar, P. Valko, W. J. Lee, and M. G. Rodriguez, "Optimization Methodology for Cyclic Steam
Injection with Horizontal Wells," presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers Conference, 2000.