SPE 91968

Experimental Investigation of Steam/Methane Flooding in a Heavy Oil Reservoir

Sedaee Sola, behnam*, Rashidi, Fariborz Chemical Eng. Dept. Of Amir Kabir University, Tehran, Iran

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

recovery while minimizing the cost of the used fluids.
Thermal enhanced oil recovery methods that have been
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2004 SPE International Petroleum
Conference in Mexico held in Puebla, Mexico, 8–9 November 2004. applied in the field include hot water drive, steam injection
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review
of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
and In-Situ combustion. Steam injection is a more effective
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject method than hot water drive, on account of the latent heat of
to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented vaporization that can be harnessed from the steam. For this
at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
reason, hot water drive is very rarely used nowadays. Due to
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum wellbore heat loss, steam injection may not be feasible
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain beyond a depth of some 3000 ft. for deeper reservoirs; in-
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-
situ combustion may be a more suitable thermal EOR
9435. method. However, currently by far, steam injection is the
most widely used thermal EOR method.
In the past thirty years, several researches have conducted
Abstract experiments on the use of steam additives to improve oil
The application of steam injection in different forms of recovery over that with steam injection alone.
processes is widely used for thermal heavy oil recovery. Pursley (1975)1 conducted one-dimensional physical model
Several studies have been carried out to evaluate the effect experiment to determine the effects of injecting air, methane
of injecting steam with gaseous additives such as, Hexane, and carbon dioxide in steam stimulation process. The results
Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Propane and air. However there showed a huge improvement in oil/steam ratio for air and
is very little literature about addition of methane or natural methane injection and less improvement in carbon dioxide.
gas to steam in order to improve steam injection process. Red Ford and Mc Kay (1980)2 presented results of physical
This experimental study, investigates the effect of methane model experiments with a range of hydrocarbons like,
as an additive to steam. A consolidated core sample of an methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, natural gasoline,
Iranian carbonate heavy oil reservoir (12°API) was used. naphtha with steam in their model. They showed that with
The experiments involved injecting steam with methane in use of higher molecular weight hydrocarbon blends recovery
various methane/steam ratios ranging from 0:100 to 10:100 increases.
at reservoir conditions pressure and fluid saturations. Red Ford (1982) ٣conducted experiments to study the effect
Superheated steam was injected at 1200 psi which is higher of adding carbon dioxide, ethane and naphtha in
than reservoir pressure at datum depth. Oil production rates, combination with steam. His 3-D physical model showed
pressure drops and methane/steam ratios were measured to that the addition of carbon dioxide or ethane improved oil
compare the effect of methane on oil recovery and other recovery.
parameters at various fluid injection rates as well as steam Hardign (1983)4 presented both experimental and simulation
temperatures. results suggesting that the co-injection of carbon dioxide or
With optimum methane/steam ratio it was noticed that oil flue gas with steam yielded higher recoveries when
production is accelerated, steam injectivity is increased and compared to pure steam injection.
also recovery is higher when compared to injection of pure Leung (1983)5, Hong and Ault (1984) conducted computer
steam. simulation study to evaluate the effect of injection of carbon
dioxide and steam on heavy oil recovery.24
Introduction Stone and Malcom (1985) conducted steam-CO2
Heavy oil is often over looked as a resource because of the experiments in 1-D model. The simulation study was also
difficulties and costs involved in its production. But the done for comparison. Also Stone and Nasr (1985) conducted
more than 6 trillion barrels of oil in place attributed to the experiments with steam-CO2 and steam-N2. Butler and Yee
heaviest hydrocarbons, triple the amount of world reserves (1986) conducted experiments on injecting methane and
of conventional oil and gas, deserve a closer look. carbon dioxide with steam in 1-D sand packed physical
While other factors such as porosity, permeability and model. A mathematical model was also developed. It was
pressure determine how a reservoir will behave, it is the oil predicted that the addition of some non-condensable gas to
density and viscosity that dictate the production approach an steam can have beneficial effect on the steam assisted
oil company will take. gravity drainage process. The experimental results agreed
On the other hand, the increasing costs of discovering new well with the theoretical predictions.6, 7, 8
oil fields and finite limits of conventional oil reserves Nasr et al. (1987)8 presented results of experiments
provide active incentive for more efficient recovery conducted to test the effect of injecting CO2, N2 and flue
methods. Research is currently being done to maximize oil gas with steam. Both continuous and cyclic injections were
2 SPE 91968

Tested. The use of CO2 resulted in higher oil recoveries gas-steam injection tests, compared to the values obtained
when compared to that with N2 and flue gas injection. with steam alone. The depression of steam temperature was
Frauenfeld et al. (1988)9 conducted steam-CO2 experiments also observed due to the presence of non-condensable gas.
for oil sands. The co-injection of CO2 with steam was
capable of improving oil recovery over that obtained with Research Objectives
steam alone for oils without initial gas content. It was not The main aim of this research is to better understand the
beneficial when an initial dissolved gas was present. mechanism for heavy oil recovery under steam-methane
Metwally (1990)10 conducted experiments to determine the injection, in an Iranian heavy oil field. To achieve this
effects of CO2 and CH4 on the performance of steam objective, a series of methane-steam injection experiments
processes. The injectivity improvement was most was conducted using steam: methane ratios ranging from
pronounced when a gas slug was injected prior to steam 0:100 (pure steam) to 10:100.
injection, but the presence of non condensable gas with The recorded parameters during the experiment included
steam did not improve the recovery. pressures, temperatures and produced volumes of liquids
Hornbook et al. (1991)11 conducted 1-D experiments to and gases.
evaluate the effects of adding CO2 to steam on recovery of
west Sak crude oil. Reservoir Fluids and Cores Description
Gumrah and Okandan (1992)12 reported the results steam-
Several experimental runs were carried out to investigate the
CO2 experiments in 1-D and 3-D model for recovering 10.6,
feasibility of using methane together with steam to improve
12 and 24 °API gravity oils. The production of lighter oil
oil recovery
fractions increased with increasing amount of CO2 and API
The used cores were from an actual heavy oil reservoir of
gravity.
Iran. Properties of these cores are shown in Table 1. And
Bagci and Gumrah (1998)13 conducted 1-D and 3-D model
Fig.1 shows a whole core.
experiments using steam-CO2 and steam-CH4 processes.
As it can be seen from the figure, the core has fractures,
The optimum gas/steam ratios were observed for both
Therefore special care needed to cut them into desired size.
processes.
These samples after cutting were washed with toluene
The effect of non-condensable gas injection on the SAGD
completely and dried in a drying oven for 3 days. This
process has been investigated by several authors, Edmund,
washing and drying repeated three times to remove all
et al. (1991)14 and Good (1997)15. Butler (1997)16 modified
possible oils from rocks.
the SAGD process by the combined injection of steam and
Actual crude oil (12 °API) of an Iranian heavy oil field is
gas. This co injection enabled high temperatures to be main
used to carry out this study. The composition and some of
trained in the region of the production well and thus high
important properties of this oil are shown in Table 2 and 3
production rates without gas coning, while at the same time,
respectively. The messured Heavy oil viscosity at various
the main steam/gas chamber is at much lower temperatures
temperatures under thermal operation is shown in Fig.3.
Goite (1999)17 conducted a series of experiments using
propane as a steam additive to enhance recovery of heavy
Experimental Apparatus
oil. Runs were carried out at various propane: steam mass
The apparatus includes steam generator, environmental
ratios-from 0:100 to 100:0 with constant total mass injection
(600°C) oven, two constant rate displacement pumps, a
rate. Results showed that the optimal concentration of
floating piston accumulator, high temperature core holder, a
propane appears to lie some where in the region of 5%.
vacuum pump, back pressure regulator, seven pressure
Ferguson (2000)18 conducted some tests with constant steam
transducers, differential pressure transducer, a differential
mass rate to optimize propane: steam mass ratio.
pressure chart recorder, an LCD display of pressure
Tinas (2001)19 carried out steam-propane experiments using
transducers, an LCD display of upstream steam temperature,
5:100 propane: steam mass ratio on medium oil. Results
an LED display of steam generator temperature, an effluent
showed a reduction in maximum injection pressure and
condenser, and rigid valves and tubing housed in a metal
increasing in API gravity and reduction of viscosity in the
enclosure. A schematic diagram of the apparatus is shown in
production oil.
Fig.2. Core sample sizes are 1-1.5 in diameter and 4 inch in
Rivero (2002)20 conducted a series of experiments using
length. Core holder Temperature can raise over 600 °C and
propane as a steam additive to evaluate the role of propane
5000 psi pressure. Fig.3 shows Oven and Core holder of the
on the extra heavy oil. A threefold increase in steam
system.
injectivity was observed with propane: steam mass ratio as
low as 2.5:100.
Experimental Procedure
Plazas (2002)21 conducted a series of experiments of steam-
The used strategy and applied experimental procedure may
propane distillation on light and medium crude oil. The
be summarized as follows:
results showed that propane has more positive effect on
1. Core is saturated with water for representing real
heavy oil than light oils.
condition. This process was done by imbibitions of
Mamova et al. (2003)22 studied feasibility of steam-propane
water.
injection for a heavy oil and intermediate oil field.
2. Actual crude oil is used to saturate the core. This
Bagci and Gumrah (2004)23 studied effects of CO2 and CH4
process was done by mercury pump with high
addition on steam. 1-D and 3-D physical models were used
pressure. Oil injection is continued until no more
to examine addition of CH4 and CO2 with steam on
water is produced (or 100% oil production is
recovery of 12.4 °API gravity heavy oil mixed with
attained).
unconsolidated limestone. The optimum CH4/steam ratios
3. Core holder and core pressure and temperature set
were 9.4 cc/cc and 8.7 cc/cc respectively in 1-D and 3-D
to real reservoir condition (1200 psia pressure and
models. The lower residual oil saturations were obtained in
100 °F temperature)
SPE 91968 3

4. Before starting steam injection, all valves, gauges, 4- Hrding T.G., Faroug Ali, S.M., and Flock, D.L. “Steam
back pressure regulator, pumps, steam generator Performance in the presence of Carbon Dioxide and
pressure and temperature and core condition are Nitrigen”, J.Cdn. Pet. Tech. (September -October 1983)
calibrated. 30.
5. Steam is generated in steam generator using
distilled water and injected in to core with 2 cc/hr 5- Leung L.C.: "Numerical Evaluation of the Effect of
and under a constant rate. This rate is cold water Simultaneous Steam and Carbon Dioxide Injection of
equivalent of steam which injection pump shows. the Recovery of Heavy Oil", JPT, (September 1983),
p.1591-1599.
6. The conventional steam flood experiment is
considered as the baseline of this study. Steam at
6- Stone, T. and Malcolm, J.D.: "Simulation of a Large
1200 psi and 600 °F is injected in to core and Steam-CO2 Coinjection Experiment," J. Cdn, Pet Tech
produced oil and gas are gathered in outlet. (November-December 1985) 51.

Results and Discussion 7- Butler, R.M. and Yee, C.T.:"An Experimental Study of
The tests were compared on the basis of oil recoveries. The Steam Condensation in the Presence of Non-
pore volume of steam injected was considered as cold water Condensable Gases in Porous Media", ROSTRA Journal
equivalent. of Research, 3, (1986), p.15-23.
A total of seven tests were conducted with the experimental
conditions. Steam alone and simultaneous injections of 8- Nasr, T.N., Prowse, D.R. and Frauenfeld. T.W.J.: "The
steam-CH4 tests were conducted. Use of Flue Gas with Steam in Bitumen Recovery from
Fig.5 compares the oil recoveries at 2.103 injected pore Oil Sands," J Cnd. Pet Tech (May-June 1987) 62.
volumes of steam injected. The simultaneous injection of
gases with steam provided higher recoveries than that of 9- Fraunfeld, T.W.J., Ridley, R.K. and Nguyen, D.M.:
"Effect of an Initial Gas Content on Thermal EOR as
steam alone tests. The optimum gas/steam ratio was also Applied to Oil Sands," J. Cdn. Pet Tech (March 1988)
observed. This value was approximately 8 cc/cc. The oil 333.
recoveries were 52 % for CH4/Steam test and 40.1 % for
steam alone test. 10- Metwally, M.: "Effect of Gaseous Additives on Steam
Figure 5 also presents the steam/oil ratio that indicates the Processes for Lindbergh Field, Alberta", JCPT (1990)
success of a process. Gas-steam injection tests supplied less 29, No. 6, 26.
steam/oil ratios than steam alone test.
In Fig.6, the oil rate is plotted vs. pore volume injected 11- Hornbrook, M.W., Dehghani, K., Qadeer, S.,
(CWE). The acceleration of oil produced by the addition of Ostermann, R.D., and Ogbe, D.O.,: "Effects of CO2
methane was found in these runs. Addition to Steam on Recovery of West Sak Crude Oil",
SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1991, 278-286.
Conclusions
The presence of gases together with steam resulted in higher 12- Gumrah, F. and Okandan, E.: "Steam-CO2 Flooding:
An Experimental Study," In Situ (1992) 16, No. 2, 89.
incremental oil recoveries compared to that for steam alone
injection.
13- Bagci, S. and Gumrah, F.: "Steam-Gas Drive Laboratory
1. The optimum gas/steam ratio for maximizing Tests for Heavy-Oil Recovery," In Situ (1998) 22, No.
the recovery was about 8 cc/cc for CH4/Steam 3, 263.
processes.
2. The injected non-condensable gas created a 14- Edmunds, NR, Kovalsky, J.A., Gittings, S.D., and
permanent gas phase across the top of the Pennacchiolli, E.D.:"Review of the Phase A Steam
model therefore heat arrived to the front earlier Assisted Gravity Drainage to an Underground Rest
than steam alone test. Facility", paper SPE 21529 presented at the SPE
3. The use of methane as an additive to steam International Thermal Operation Symposium,
resulted in injection pressures lower than those Bakersfield, CA, (February 7-8,1991).
of pure steam injection.
4. Maximum oil production happens at lower 15- Good, W.K.:"Reservoir Blunting in the SAGD
Process", paper presented at Computer Modelling
injected pore volume for steam/methane than
Group's 31st Technical Advisory Committee and
steam only injection. Members Annual General Meeting, Calgary, AB, (May
21-22, 1997).
References
1- Pursley, S.A.:”Experimental studies of thermal recovery 16- Butler, R. M.:"The Steam and Gas Push (SAGP)", paper
Procesess,” Paper prepared at the Maracaibo Heavy Oil presented at the Petroleum Society's 48th Annual
Symposium, Maracaibo, Venezuela, (Jine 4, 1975). Technical Meeting, Calgary, AB, (June 8-11, 1997).

2- Redford, D.A. and McKay, A.S.:“HyDrocarbon -Steam- 17- Goite, J.G. and Mamora, D.D.: "Experimental Study of
Process for recovery of Bitumen from Oil Sands”, SPE, Morichal Heavy Oil Recovery Using Combined Steam
8823 prepared at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery and Propane Injection," paper SPE 69566 presented at
Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 20-23, 1980. the 2001 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25-
3- Redford, D.A. and McKay, A.S.:“The Use of Solvents 28 March.
and Gasses in the Rocovery of Bitumen from Oil
Sands”, J.Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jaunary-Febreuary 1982) 45.
4 SPE 91968

18- Ferguson, M.A., Mamora, D.D., and Goite, J.G.:

"Steam-Propane Injection for Production Enhancement
of Heavy Morichal Oil," paper SPE 69689 presented at
the 2001 SPE International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium, Margarita Island, Venezuela,
12-14 March.

19- Tinss, J.C.: "Experimental Studies of Steam-Propane

Injection to Enhance Recovery of an Intermediate Crude
Oil," MS Thesis, Texas A&M U., College Station, TX
(2001).

20- J.A. Rivero, D.D. Mamora:"Production Acceleration

and Injectivity Enhancement Using Steam-Propane
Injection for Hamaca Extra-Heavy Oil", paper SPE
75129 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 13-17
April 2002.

21- Plazas, Joyce: "Experimental Study of Oil Yields and

Properties of light and medium Venezuelan Crude Oils
Under Steam and Steam-Propane Distillation," MS
Thesis, Texas A&M U., College Station, TX (2002).

22- D.D. Mamora, J.A. Rivero, A. Hendroyono, G.J.

Venturini:"Experimental and Simulation Studies of
Steam-Propane Injection for the Hamaca and Duri
Fields", paper SPE 75129 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver,
Colorado, U.S.A., 5-8 October 2003.

23- Bagci A.S., Gumrah F.,:"Effects of CO2 and CH4

Addition to Steam on Recovery of West Kozluca Heavy
Oil", paper SPE 75129 presented at the SPE
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium and Western Regional Meeting held in
Bakersfield, California, U.S.A., 16-18 March 2004
SPE 91968 5

Table 1.Cores Permeabilities and Prosoties.

Permeability (md)
Sample No. Porosity (%)
Horizontal Vertical
1 18.2 19.65 17.22
2 12.4 39.96 6.15
3 14.3 3.64 1.63
4 16.0 18.20 19.40
5 15.5 25.96 18.30
6 16.8 5.37 0.03

Table 2.Heavy Oil Composition

Figure 1.Picture of Whole Core #5 before Cutting

Composition. Mole%
iC4 0.163
nC4 1.217
iC5 1.222
nC5 1.907
C6 4.823
C7 6.513
C8 7.148
C9 6.288
C10 5.423
C11 3.716
C12 3.087
C13 1.508
C14 1.504
C15 1.072 Figure 2.Schematic Diagram of Experimental Setup
C16 0.449
C17 0.246
C18 0.172
C19+ 53.542

Table 3.Oil Sample Properties

API 12 - Figure 3.Oven And Core Holder

Reservoir temperature 180 °F
GOR 62 SCF/STB
Bubble Point 433 Psi
Bo @Bubble Point 1.07 RB/STB
6 SPE 91968

Variation of Viscosity vs. Tempreture

100000
Viscosity , cp

10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Temperatute , °F

Figure 4. Variation of Viscosity vs. Tempreture

Cumulative Oill Recovery , % IOIP

55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Methane/Steam Ratio , cc/cc

Figure 5.The effect of CH4/Steam Ratio on Oil Recovery@ 1

PV os Steam Injected

S t e a m O nly C H 4 / S t e a m ( 1/ 10 0 ) C H 4 / S t e a m ( 5 / 10 0 )
C H 4 / S t e a m ( 7 / 10 0 ) C H 4 / S t e a m ( 9 / 10 0 ) C H 4 / S t e a m ( 10 / 10 0 )
C H 4 / S t e a m ( 3 / 10 0 )
0.80

0.70

0.60
Oil Rate , cc/min

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Pore Volum e Injected , PV

Figure 6.Oil Rate vs. Pore Volume Injected