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. This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2004 SPE International Petroleum Conference in Mexico held in Puebla, Mexico, 89 November 2004. 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 presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain 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 01-972-9529435.

Abstract The application of steam injection in different forms of processes is widely used for thermal heavy oil recovery. Several studies have been carried out to evaluate the effect of injecting steam with gaseous additives such as, Hexane, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Propane and air. However there is very little literature about addition of methane or natural gas to steam in order to improve steam injection process. This experimental study, investigates the effect of methane as an additive to steam. A consolidated core sample of an Iranian carbonate heavy oil reservoir (12API) was used. The experiments involved injecting steam with methane in various methane/steam ratios ranging from 0:100 to 10:100 at reservoir conditions pressure and fluid saturations. Superheated steam was injected at 1200 psi which is higher than reservoir pressure at datum depth. Oil production rates, pressure drops and methane/steam ratios were measured to compare the effect of methane on oil recovery and other parameters at various fluid injection rates as well as steam temperatures. With optimum methane/steam ratio it was noticed that oil production is accelerated, steam injectivity is increased and also recovery is higher when compared to injection of pure steam. Introduction Heavy oil is often over looked as a resource because of the difficulties and costs involved in its production. But the more than 6 trillion barrels of oil in place attributed to the heaviest hydrocarbons, triple the amount of world reserves of conventional oil and gas, deserve a closer look. While other factors such as porosity, permeability and pressure determine how a reservoir will behave, it is the oil density and viscosity that dictate the production approach an oil company will take. On the other hand, the increasing costs of discovering new oil fields and finite limits of conventional oil reserves provide active incentive for more efficient recovery methods. Research is currently being done to maximize oil

recovery while minimizing the cost of the used fluids. Thermal enhanced oil recovery methods that have been applied in the field include hot water drive, steam injection and In-Situ combustion. Steam injection is a more effective method than hot water drive, on account of the latent heat of vaporization that can be harnessed from the steam. For this reason, hot water drive is very rarely used nowadays. Due to wellbore heat loss, steam injection may not be feasible beyond a depth of some 3000 ft. for deeper reservoirs; insitu combustion may be a more suitable thermal EOR method. However, currently by far, steam injection is the most widely used thermal EOR method. In the past thirty years, several researches have conducted experiments on the use of steam additives to improve oil recovery over that with steam injection alone. Pursley (1975)1 conducted one-dimensional physical model experiment to determine the effects of injecting air, methane and carbon dioxide in steam stimulation process. The results showed a huge improvement in oil/steam ratio for air and methane injection and less improvement in carbon dioxide. Red Ford and Mc Kay (1980)2 presented results of physical model experiments with a range of hydrocarbons like, methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, natural gasoline, naphtha with steam in their model. They showed that with use of higher molecular weight hydrocarbon blends recovery increases. Red Ford (1982) conducted experiments to study the effect of adding carbon dioxide, ethane and naphtha in combination with steam. His 3-D physical model showed that the addition of carbon dioxide or ethane improved oil recovery. Hardign (1983)4 presented both experimental and simulation results suggesting that the co-injection of carbon dioxide or flue gas with steam yielded higher recoveries when compared to pure steam injection. Leung (1983)5, Hong and Ault (1984) conducted computer simulation study to evaluate the effect of injection of carbon dioxide and steam on heavy oil recovery.24 Stone and Malcom (1985) conducted steam-CO2 experiments in 1-D model. The simulation study was also done for comparison. Also Stone and Nasr (1985) conducted experiments with steam-CO2 and steam-N2. Butler and Yee (1986) conducted experiments on injecting methane and carbon dioxide with steam in 1-D sand packed physical model. A mathematical model was also developed. It was predicted that the addition of some non-condensable gas to steam can have beneficial effect on the steam assisted gravity drainage process. The experimental results agreed well with the theoretical predictions.6, 7, 8 Nasr et al. (1987)8 presented results of experiments conducted to test the effect of injecting CO2, N2 and flue gas with steam. Both continuous and cyclic injections were

www.petroman.ir

SPE 91968

Tested. The use of CO2 resulted in higher oil recoveries when compared to that with N2 and flue gas injection. Frauenfeld et al. (1988)9 conducted steam-CO2 experiments for oil sands. The co-injection of CO2 with steam was capable of improving oil recovery over that obtained with steam alone for oils without initial gas content. It was not beneficial when an initial dissolved gas was present. Metwally (1990)10 conducted experiments to determine the effects of CO2 and CH4 on the performance of steam processes. The injectivity improvement was most pronounced when a gas slug was injected prior to steam injection, but the presence of non condensable gas with steam did not improve the recovery. Hornbook et al. (1991)11 conducted 1-D experiments to evaluate the effects of adding CO2 to steam on recovery of west Sak crude oil. Gumrah and Okandan (1992)12 reported the results steamCO2 experiments in 1-D and 3-D model for recovering 10.6, 12 and 24 API gravity oils. The production of lighter oil fractions increased with increasing amount of CO2 and API gravity. Bagci and Gumrah (1998)13 conducted 1-D and 3-D model experiments using steam-CO2 and steam-CH4 processes. The optimum gas/steam ratios were observed for both processes. The effect of non-condensable gas injection on the SAGD process has been investigated by several authors, Edmund, et al. (1991)14 and Good (1997)15. Butler (1997)16 modified the SAGD process by the combined injection of steam and gas. This co injection enabled high temperatures to be main trained in the region of the production well and thus high production rates without gas coning, while at the same time, the main steam/gas chamber is at much lower temperatures Goite (1999)17 conducted a series of experiments using propane as a steam additive to enhance recovery of heavy oil. Runs were carried out at various propane: steam mass ratios-from 0:100 to 100:0 with constant total mass injection rate. Results showed that the optimal concentration of propane appears to lie some where in the region of 5%. Ferguson (2000)18 conducted some tests with constant steam mass rate to optimize propane: steam mass ratio. Tinas (2001)19 carried out steam-propane experiments using 5:100 propane: steam mass ratio on medium oil. Results showed a reduction in maximum injection pressure and increasing in API gravity and reduction of viscosity in the production oil. Rivero (2002)20 conducted a series of experiments using propane as a steam additive to evaluate the role of propane on the extra heavy oil. A threefold increase in steam injectivity was observed with propane: steam mass ratio as low as 2.5:100. Plazas (2002)21 conducted a series of experiments of steampropane distillation on light and medium crude oil. The results showed that propane has more positive effect on heavy oil than light oils. Mamova et al. (2003)22 studied feasibility of steam-propane injection for a heavy oil and intermediate oil field. Bagci and Gumrah (2004)23 studied effects of CO2 and CH4 addition on steam. 1-D and 3-D physical models were used to examine addition of CH4 and CO2 with steam on recovery of 12.4 API gravity heavy oil mixed with unconsolidated limestone. The optimum CH4/steam ratios were 9.4 cc/cc and 8.7 cc/cc respectively in 1-D and 3-D models. The lower residual oil saturations were obtained in

gas-steam injection tests, compared to the values obtained with steam alone. The depression of steam temperature was also observed due to the presence of non-condensable gas. Research Objectives The main aim of this research is to better understand the mechanism for heavy oil recovery under steam-methane injection, in an Iranian heavy oil field. To achieve this objective, a series of methane-steam injection experiments was conducted using steam: methane ratios ranging from 0:100 (pure steam) to 10:100. The recorded parameters during the experiment included pressures, temperatures and produced volumes of liquids and gases. Reservoir Fluids and Cores Description Several experimental runs were carried out to investigate the feasibility of using methane together with steam to improve oil recovery The used cores were from an actual heavy oil reservoir of Iran. Properties of these cores are shown in Table 1. And Fig.1 shows a whole core. As it can be seen from the figure, the core has fractures, Therefore special care needed to cut them into desired size. These samples after cutting were washed with toluene completely and dried in a drying oven for 3 days. This washing and drying repeated three times to remove all possible oils from rocks. Actual crude oil (12 API) of an Iranian heavy oil field is used to carry out this study. The composition and some of important properties of this oil are shown in Table 2 and 3 respectively. The messured Heavy oil viscosity at various temperatures under thermal operation is shown in Fig.3. Experimental Apparatus The apparatus includes steam generator, environmental (600C) oven, two constant rate displacement pumps, a floating piston accumulator, high temperature core holder, a vacuum pump, back pressure regulator, seven pressure transducers, differential pressure transducer, a differential pressure chart recorder, an LCD display of pressure transducers, an LCD display of upstream steam temperature, an LED display of steam generator temperature, an effluent condenser, and rigid valves and tubing housed in a metal enclosure. A schematic diagram of the apparatus is shown in Fig.2. Core sample sizes are 1-1.5 in diameter and 4 inch in length. Core holder Temperature can raise over 600 C and 5000 psi pressure. Fig.3 shows Oven and Core holder of the system. Experimental Procedure The used strategy and applied experimental procedure may be summarized as follows: 1. Core is saturated with water for representing real condition. This process was done by imbibitions of water. 2. Actual crude oil is used to saturate the core. This process was done by mercury pump with high pressure. Oil injection is continued until no more water is produced (or 100% oil production is attained). 3. Core holder and core pressure and temperature set to real reservoir condition (1200 psia pressure and 100 F temperature)

www.petroman.ir

SPE 91968

4.

5.

6.

Before starting steam injection, all valves, gauges, back pressure regulator, pumps, steam generator pressure and temperature and core condition are calibrated. Steam is generated in steam generator using distilled water and injected in to core with 2 cc/hr and under a constant rate. This rate is cold water equivalent of steam which injection pump shows. The conventional steam flood experiment is considered as the baseline of this study. Steam at 1200 psi and 600 F is injected in to core and produced oil and gas are gathered in outlet.

4-

Hrding T.G., Faroug Ali, S.M., and Flock, D.L. Steam Performance in the presence of Carbon Dioxide and Nitrigen, J.Cdn. Pet. Tech. (September -October 1983) 30. Leung L.C.: "Numerical Evaluation of the Effect of Simultaneous Steam and Carbon Dioxide Injection of the Recovery of Heavy Oil", JPT, (September 1983), p.1591-1599. Stone, T. and Malcolm, J.D.: "Simulation of a Large Steam-CO2 Coinjection Experiment," J. Cdn, Pet Tech (November-December 1985) 51. Butler, R.M. and Yee, C.T.:"An Experimental Study of Steam Condensation in the Presence of NonCondensable Gases in Porous Media", ROSTRA Journal of Research, 3, (1986), p.15-23. Nasr, T.N., Prowse, D.R. and Frauenfeld. T.W.J.: "The Use of Flue Gas with Steam in Bitumen Recovery from Oil Sands," J Cnd. Pet Tech (May-June 1987) 62. Fraunfeld, T.W.J., Ridley, R.K. and Nguyen, D.M.: "Effect of an Initial Gas Content on Thermal EOR as Applied to Oil Sands," J. Cdn. Pet Tech (March 1988) 333.

5-

6-

Results and Discussion The tests were compared on the basis of oil recoveries. The pore volume of steam injected was considered as cold water equivalent. A total of seven tests were conducted with the experimental conditions. Steam alone and simultaneous injections of steam-CH4 tests were conducted. Fig.5 compares the oil recoveries at 2.103 injected pore volumes of steam injected. The simultaneous injection of gases with steam provided higher recoveries than that of steam alone tests. The optimum gas/steam ratio was also observed. This value was approximately 8 cc/cc. The oil recoveries were 52 % for CH4/Steam test and 40.1 % for steam alone test. Figure 5 also presents the steam/oil ratio that indicates the success of a process. Gas-steam injection tests supplied less steam/oil ratios than steam alone test. In Fig.6, the oil rate is plotted vs. pore volume injected (CWE). The acceleration of oil produced by the addition of methane was found in these runs. Conclusions The presence of gases together with steam resulted in higher incremental oil recoveries compared to that for steam alone injection. 1. The optimum gas/steam ratio for maximizing the recovery was about 8 cc/cc for CH4/Steam processes. 2. The injected non-condensable gas created a permanent gas phase across the top of the model therefore heat arrived to the front earlier than steam alone test. 3. The use of methane as an additive to steam resulted in injection pressures lower than those of pure steam injection. 4. Maximum oil production happens at lower injected pore volume for steam/methane than steam only injection. References
1Pursley, S.A.:Experimental studies of thermal recovery Procesess, Paper prepared at the Maracaibo Heavy Oil Symposium, Maracaibo, Venezuela, (Jine 4, 1975). Redford, D.A. and McKay, A.S.:HyDrocarbon -SteamProcess for recovery of Bitumen from Oil Sands, SPE, 8823 prepared at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 20-23, 1980. Redford, D.A. and McKay, A.S.:The Use of Solvents and Gasses in the Rocovery of Bitumen from Oil Sands, J.Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jaunary-Febreuary 1982) 45.

7-

8-

9-

10- Metwally, M.: "Effect of Gaseous Additives on Steam Processes for Lindbergh Field, Alberta", JCPT (1990) 29, No. 6, 26. 11- Hornbrook, M.W., Dehghani, K., Qadeer, S., Ostermann, R.D., and Ogbe, D.O.,: "Effects of CO2 Addition to Steam on Recovery of West Sak Crude Oil", SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1991, 278-286. 12- Gumrah, F. and Okandan, E.: "Steam-CO2 Flooding: An Experimental Study," In Situ (1992) 16, No. 2, 89. 13- Bagci, S. and Gumrah, F.: "Steam-Gas Drive Laboratory Tests for Heavy-Oil Recovery," In Situ (1998) 22, No. 3, 263. 14- Edmunds, NR, Kovalsky, J.A., Gittings, S.D., and Pennacchiolli, E.D.:"Review of the Phase A Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage to an Underground Rest Facility", paper SPE 21529 presented at the SPE International Thermal Operation Symposium, Bakersfield, CA, (February 7-8,1991). 15- Good, W.K.:"Reservoir Blunting in the SAGD Process", paper presented at Computer Modelling Group's 31st Technical Advisory Committee and Members Annual General Meeting, Calgary, AB, (May 21-22, 1997). 16- Butler, R. M.:"The Steam and Gas Push (SAGP)", paper presented at the Petroleum Society's 48th Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, AB, (June 8-11, 1997). 17- Goite, J.G. and Mamora, D.D.: "Experimental Study of Morichal Heavy Oil Recovery Using Combined Steam and Propane Injection," paper SPE 69566 presented at the 2001 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2528 March.

2-

3-

www.petroman.ir

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

www.petroman.ir

SPE 91968

Table 1.Cores Permeabilities and Prosoties. Permeability (md) Horizontal 19.65 39.96 3.64 18.20 25.96 5.37 Vertical 17.22 6.15 1.63 19.40 18.30 0.03

Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Porosity (%) 18.2 12.4 14.3 16.0 15.5 16.8

Table 2.Heavy Oil Composition Figure 1.Picture of Whole Core #5 before Cutting Composition. iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19+ Mole% 0.163 1.217 1.222 1.907 4.823 6.513 7.148 6.288 5.423 3.716 3.087 1.508 1.504 1.072 0.449 0.246 0.172 53.542 Figure 2.Schematic Diagram of Experimental Setup

Table 3.Oil Sample Properties API Reservoir temperature GOR Bubble Point Bo @Bubble Point 12 180 62 433 1.07 F SCF/STB Psi RB/STB Figure 3.Oven And Core Holder

www.petroman.ir

SPE 91968

Variation of Viscosity vs. Tempreture

100000 10000 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Temperatute , F

Viscosity , cp

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

www.petroman.ir