(steam-co 2 drive experiments using horizontal and vertical)
Post on 03-Jun-2018
275 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
1/17
ELSEVIER
Journal o f Petroleum Science and E ngineering 18 (1997) 113 - 129
S t e a m C O 2 d r iv e e x p e r i m e n t s u s i n g h o r i z o n t a l a n d v e r ti ca l w e l l s
F Giim rah , S . Ba~ cl
Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Department Middle East Techmcal University 06531 Ankara Turkey
Rece wed 4 July 1996; accepted 17 January 1997
A b s t r a c t
R e s e a r c h i n t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a s i m u l t a n e o u s s t e a m - C O 2 d ri v e p r o c e s s a n d t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f v e r t i c a l an d h o r i z o n t a l
i n j e c t i o n - p r o d u c t i o n w e l l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s w a s c o n d u c t e d i n a p h y s i c a l m o d e l o f 1 / 1 2 t h o f a n i n v e r t e d r e g u l a r s e v e n - s p o t
p a t t er n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r e c o v e r y p e r f o r m a n c e o f 1 2 . 4 A P I h e a v y o i l . T h r e e g r o u p s o f w e l l c o n f i g u r a ti o n s w e r e m a i n l y
i n v e s t i g a te d : a v e r t i c a l i n je c t i o n a n d p r o d u c t i o n w e l l s s c h e m e ( g r o u p 1 ), a v e r t i c a l in j e c t i o n a n d h o r i z o n t a l p r o d u c t i o n w e l l s
s c h e m e ( g r o u p s 2 A a n d 2 B ) , a n d a h o r i z o n t a l i n j e c t i o n a n d p r o d u c t i o n w e l l s s c h e m e ( g r o u p s 3 C a n d 3 D ) . A t o t a l o f 1 7
e x p e r i m e n t s o f w h i c h h a v i n g f i v e s t e a m - a l o n e a n d t w e l v e s t e a m - C O 2 p r o c e s se s w e r e c o n d u c t e d f o r th e a b o v e w e l l
c o n f ig u r a t io n s .
I n s t e a m - a l o n e t e s t s , th e v e r t i c a l i n j e c t o r a n d h o r i z o n t a l p r o d u c e r s c h e m e ( g r o u p 2 B ) s u p p l i e d a h i g h e r r e c o v e r y t h a n t h a t
o f t h e o th e r s. T h e o i l re c o v e r y w a s 3 3 . 6 % o f o r ig i n a l o i l i n p l a c e ( O O I P ) i n g r o u p 2 B c o m p a r e d t o 7 . 8 % o f O O I P f o r t h e
v e r t i c a l i n j e c t i o n a n d p r o d u c t i o n w e l l s s c h e m e ( g r o u p 1 ) a t 1 p o r e v o l u m e ( P V ) o f s t e a m i n j e c t e d . T h e l o w e s t u l t im a t e
r e c o v e r y w a s o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e h o r i z o n t a l i n j e c t o r - h o r i z o n t a l p r o d u c e r w e l l c o n f i g u r a t i o n ( g r o u p 3 C ) .
F o r s t e a m - C O ~ t e s t s , o i l r e c o v e r i e s w e r e 5 8 . 3 % a n d 2 5 . 3 % o f O O I P f o r a C O 2 / s t e a m r a t io o f 1 4. 2 d m 3 / 1 i n g r o u p 2 A
a n d t h e h o r iz o n t a l i n j e c t o r a n d p r o d u c e r ( g r o u p 3 C ) w i t h a C O 2 / s t e a m r a t i o o f 1 3 .4 d m 3 / 1 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e c o - i n j e c ta o n o f
C O 2 w i t h s t e a m i n c r e a s e d t h e u l t i m a t e o i l r e c o v e r y a n d t h e p r o d u c t i o n r a te o v e r s t e a m a l o n e . T h e r e c o v e r y e f f i c i e n c y o f
h o r i z o n t a l i n j e c t o r - h o r i z o n t a l p r o d u c e r ( g r o u p 3 C ) w a s a l s o t h e l o w e s t o n e , b u t v e r t i c al i n j e c t o r - h o r i z o n t a l p r o d u c e r ( g r o u p
2 A ) g a v e t h e b e s t p e r f o r m a n c e w h e n c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r t e s t s .
W h e n s t e a m - a l o n e a n d s t e a m - C O 2 t e st s w e r e c o m p a r e d , t h e o i l r e c o v e r y i n c re a s e d w i t h i n c r e a s i n g C O 2 / s t e a m r a t i o t i ll
a n o p t i m u m v a l u e w a s re a c h e d , a ft e r w h i c h a d i m i n i s h i n g e f f e c t w a s o b s e r v e d . T h e o p t i m u m C O 2 / s t e a m r a t io fo r
m a x i m i s i n g o i l r e c o v e r y w a s ~ 1 4 d m 3 / 1 f o r a ll w e l l c o n f i g u r a ti o n s . T h e r e f o r e t h e v a l u e o f C O 2 / s t e a m r a t io w a s o n e o f
t h e i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s w h i c h a f f e c t e d th e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e p r o ce s s . T h e o t h e r f a c t o r w h i c h i n f l u e n c e d t h e o i l r e c o v e r y w a s
t h e w e l l t y p e o f i n j e c t o r a n d / o r p r o d u c e r w h e t h e r i t i s h o ri z o n t a l o r v e r ti c a l . T h e d i s ta n c e b e t w e e n t h e w e l l s a l s o a f f e c te d
t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e p r o ce s s . T h e p r i m a r y m e c h a n i s m s f o r t h e m o b i l i s a t i o n o f o i l w e r e v i s c o s i t y r e d u c ti o n , s t e a m d i s t i l la t i o n ,
s t r ip p in g a n d g a s d r iv e e f f e c t o f C O 2 .
Keywords: stea m -CO 2 drive: physical model; vertical-ho rizontal wells , heavy-oil recovery
1 I n t r o d u c t i o n
* Correspo nding author. Fax:
Fevz i@ orqual.cc.metu.edu.tr
90-312-2101271; e-maih
H e a v y - o i l r e s e rv o i r s p re s e n t p r o d u c t i o n p r o b l e m s
b e c a u s e t h e h i g h o i l v i s c o s i t y a n d l o w r e s e r v o i r
e n e r g y r e s u l t i n l o w r e c o v e r y r a t e s a n d p o o r r e c o v -
092 0-41 05/ 97/ 17. 00 Copyright 1 997 Elsevier Science B.V. All r ights reserved.
PII S 0 9 2 0 - 4 1 0 5 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 0 3 - X
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
2/17
4 F. Gf imrah , S. Ba~c t / Journa l o f Pe t ro leum Sc ience and Engm eermg 18 11997 113- 129
ery efficiency when compared to those of conven-
tional oil reservoirs. The most widely used thermal
technique to extract residual oil from heavy-oil fields
is steam injection (Chu, 1985). There is an interest in
using CO 2 gas as immiscible phase for recovering
heavy oil (Roadifer, 1986). In heavy-oi l reservoirs, a
combination of steam and non-condensable gases
can be used to increase heavy-oil production. In
Turkey 80 of the oil reservoirs are heavy-oil reser-
voirs (Kantar and Topkaya, 1983). These heavy oils
are usually mobile at reservoir conditions and most
can be produced with primary production but recov-
ery is very low. The Bat1 Kozluca Field which has
98 106 stb crude oil with 12.4API is located in
the southeastern region of Turkey. The presence of
the Dodan natural gas field having 93 of CO~
close to the oil field may favour the use of the CO 2
injection process with steam. In the following para-
graphs, the results of field tests, simulation studies
and laboratory experiments for the combined use of
steam and gases are reviewed.
Steam-air stimulation f ield tests were reported
by Rintoul (1979) and Meldau et al. (1981). The
improvement in oil recovery over conventional steam
stimulation was recorded in these applications. Sperry
(1981) reported the results of the Vapour Therm
system in three different fields in the U.S. mid-conti-
nent region. An improvement in oil/steam ratio was
achieved. The steam-generating systems such as
downhole steam generators (Fox et al., 1981), the
Vapour Therm process (Sperry, 1981). and the
wet-air oxidation technique (Wilhelmi and Knopp,
1979) consider the injection of produced non-con-
densable gases with high-quality steam into the
reservoirs. The injection of gases together with steam
is believed to benefit the recovery process by the
presence of non-condensing gas phase. Schirmer and
Eson (1985) reported the concept of using a direct
fired downhole steam generator in thermal oil recov-
ery projects in the Kern River Field, California. The
oil/steam ratio and peak production rate obtained
from downhole the steam generator were higher
compared to previous responses with conventional
steam injection.
Numerical reserL oir simulato rs have been used to
predict the effect of various conditions on the use of
non-condensable gases with steam for oil recovery
(Weinstein, 1974; Fox et al., 1981; Meldau et al.,
1981; Balog et al., 1982; Leung, 1982; Claridge and
Dietrich, 1983; Stone and Malcolm, 1985a,b). Co-in-
jection of a non-condensable gas with steam acceler-
ated the oil production compared to the steam-only
case. The ultimate recovery in a certain period was
about the same for both cases, or higher for the
co-injection case, depending on operating and reser-
voir conditions. This indicates that an interpretation
of simulation studies should be made with awareness
of the conditions studied.
The results of l abora to~ experimen ts which have
been conducted to study the expected beneficial ef-
fect of co-injecting a non-condensable gas together
with steam are summarised in the following para-
graphs. Ozen (1967) conducted a laboratory experi-
ment to test the effect of co-injection of nitrogen gas
on steam flood residual oil saturation. It was found
that N2-steam flooding increased the oil recovery by
~ 4- 5 more compared to the steam-only case.
This result was attributed to the presence of gas in
the core which would aid in the distillation of crude
leading to increased oil recovery. Slobod and Mer-
riam (1969) investigated the contribution of factors
as gas drive and vaporisation to improve the effi-
ciency of displacement o f oil by steam flooding. But,
hot water was used to introduce heat into the system,
and nitrogen was used to provide a vapour space in
the porous system to isolate the actions produced by
heat alone and vaporisation alone. Pursley (1975)
carried out experiments to investigate the effect of
injecting air, methane, or CO 2 on steam stimulation.
A dramatic improvement in the oil/steam ratio was
observed as a result of injecting methane or air. The
addition of CO~ was somewhat less effective be-
cause of its high solubility in water. Fox et al. (1981)
conducted laboratory experiments to examine recov-
ery with soluble gas-steam drive using core sam-
ples. It was found that soluble gas-steam drive
recovered more rapidly than the steam-only case.
Redford (1982) reported the effects of adding CO 2
or ethane to steam in a 3-D physical model. Adding
of CO 2 or ethane to steam greatly improved the
recovery of Athabasca tar sand over that recovered
with other additives. This was attributed to a solution
gas drive effect which produced the fluid from the
cooler portion of the reservoir. Briggs et al. (1982)
presented the results of a 1-D physical simulator of
cyclic steam injection with CO~ and naphtha addi-
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
3/17
F. Giimrah, S. Ba~ct / Journal of Petroleum Sctence and Engineering 18 1997) 113-129
115
rives. The experiments were done with Athabasca tar
sand. The use of CO 2 with steam improved recovery
primarily by providing additional drive energy on the
depletion portion o f the cyclic process. Harding et al.
1983) reported results of a physical model study of
steam flooding with nitrogen and CO 2 additives
which were injected into a linear porous medium
saturated with a moderately viscous refined oil and
water. It was observed that the simultaneous injec-
tion of the gases with steam resulted in a significant
improvement in the ultimate recovery of the crude
oil. Paracha 1985) studied the effects of CO~ addi-
tion to steam in a 1-D laboratory model on heavy
oils. The results indicated that although CO: with
steam increased the rate o f recovery significantly, the
oil viscosity and hence the API gravity were en-
larged. Stone and Malcolm 1985b) conducted high-
pressure steam-C O, co-injection experiments in a
1-D physical model with Athabasca tar sand. The
results from the experiments were compared with
results from a numerical model study. Both models
gave results that co-injection of CO z and steam
increased ultimate recovery. Stone and Nasr 1985)
analysed the use of s tea m-CO 2 and s tea m-N 2 mix-
tures in a set of continuous injection experiments in
a test bed. The addi tion of CO 2 to the steam resulted
in a significant change in the displacement mecha-
nism. An enhanced bitumen stripping and the forma-
tion of a gas zone around the injection well resulted
in increased conformance in the test bed and in-
creased bitumen production, as well as in bitumen
viscosity reduction due to d issolved CO 2 and an
increased pressure gradient between the injection and
production wells. Stone and Ivory 1987) carried out
steam-C O 2 experiments in a large pressure oil sand
vessel. CO 2 pre-soak followed by steam injection,
steam-C O 2 co-injection and steam, CO, and solvent
co-injection experiments were employed to under-
stand the mechanisms behind recovery processes. In
all cases investigated, the addition of CO~_ to steam
resulted in improved utilisation of injected energy
and improved the oil recovery over that from steam
alone. Nasr et al. 1987) studied the effects of steam,
ste am-C O 2, ste am-N 2 and stea m-CO R-N 2 mix-
tures on bitumen recovery from oil sands by using a
3-D physical model. The test results showed that the
addition of flue gas to steam substantially improved
both rate and ultimate recovery of bitumen as com-
pared to that obtained by steam alone. The steam-
CO 2 mixture was superior to either the steam-N 2 or
steam-flue gas combinations. Giimrah and Okandan
1987) studied simultaneous steam-CO, injection
processes in a 1-D physical limestone pack model
with heavy oils. The results indicated that an opti-
mum COJsteam injection ratio was present. The
ste am-C O 2 process accelerated production of heavy
oil above that of the steam-only case. Doscher et al.
1988) conducted scaled physical model experiments
to investigate the advantage of using high-velocity
gas injection for recovering reservoir fluids, the in-
jection of gas and steam after steam breakthrough for
increasing the profitability of some steam drives and
the use of specially fractured horizontal wells to aid
in the profitable production of viscous hydrocarbons.
Frauenfeld et al. 1988) conducted physical model
experiments to study the effects of a steam injection
process. For oils without an initial gas content, co-in-
jection of CO 2 with steam was capable of improving
oil recovery over that obtained with steam alone.
When an initial dissolved gas was present, co-injec-
tion of CO 2 was not beneficial. Injection o f CO 2 or
CH slugs just before steam injection was beneficial
in increasing oil recovery for experiments where an
initial dissolved gas was present. Metwally 1990)
conducted a laboratory program for the Lindbergh
Field, Alberta, to investigate the effect of CO~ and
methane on the performance of steam processes. The
results indicated that the presence of a non-con-
densable gas improved steam injectivity. Injectivity
improvement was most pronounced when a gas slug
was injected prior to steam injection, but the pres-
ence of a non-condensable gas with steam did not
improve recovery and resulted in much higher resid-
ual oil saturation compared to steam injection alone.
Hornbrook et al. 1991) carried out a high-pressure
1-D laboratory displacement study to evaluate the
effects of adding CO 2 to steam on the recovery of
West Sak crude oil. It was found that adding CO 2 to
steam improved the recovery and recovery rate of
the crude over conventional steam flooding. Giimrah
and Okandan 1992) conducted steam-C O 2 experi-
ments in 1-D and 3-D laboratory models to evaluate
the benefits o f CO 2 addition to steam on the recov-
ery of heavy oils. The linear tests indicated that the
oil recovery increased with increasing CO2/steam
ratios until an optimum value was reached. Light-oil
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
4/17
116 F . G i im r a h , S . B a ~ c t / J o u r n a l o f P e t r o l e u m S c i e n c e a n d E n g i n e e r i n g 1 8 1 9 9 7 ) 1 1 3 - 1 2 9
r e c o v e r y w a s r e l a t i v e l y l e s s i mp r o v e d b y t h e a d d i -
t i o n o f C O 2 to t h e i n j e c t e d s t e a m ; h o w e v e r , t h e o i l
p r o d u c t i o n r a t e w a s i n c r e a s e d c o n s i d e r a b l y f o r a l l
o i ls . T h e p r o d u c t i o n o f l i g h te r - o i l f r a c t io n s i n c r e a s e d
w i t h i n c r e a s i n g CO 2 c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d A P I g r a v i t y .
N a s r a n d P i e r c e 1 9 9 5 ) u s e d a h i g h - p r e s s u r e a n d
h i g h - t e mp e r a t u r e s c a l e d mo d e l t o e v a l u a t e o i l r e c o v -
e r y p r o c e s s e s b y a s e r i e s o f e x p e r i m e n t s o n s t e a m -
CO 2 i n j e c ti o n s t r a te g i e s f o r b o t t o m w a t e r r e s e r v o i r s .
T h e c o - i n j e c t i o n o f CO 2 w i t h s t e a m a c c e l e r a t e d a n d
i m p r o v e d o i l r e c o v e r y r a t e s a s c o m p a r e d t o s t e a m -
o n l y i n j e ct i on . T h e s t e a m - C O 2 c o n t i n u o u s i n j e c t i o n
r e s u l t e d i n a b e t t e r p e r f o r ma n c e t h a n t h a t f r o m
s t e a m - o n l y o r s t e a m - C O 2 s e q u e n t ia l i n je c t io n .
S t e a m- o n l y i n j e c t i o n r e s u l t e d i n a d r a ma t i c i mp r o v e -
m e n t i n o il r e c o v e r y a s c o m p a r e d t o h o t w a t e r - C O 2
in jec t ion .
N o e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a k n o w n t o u s h a v e b e e n
p u b l i s h e d o n s t e a m f l o o d i n g i n th e p r e s e n c e o f C O 2
f o r Ba t l K o z l u c a c r u d e o i l . A l s o , t h e r e h a s n o c o m-
p a r a t i v e s t u d y b e e n m a d e o n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f
s t e a m - C O 2 p r o c e s s e s b y t h e u s e o f h o r i zo n t a l a n d
v e r t i c a l i n j e c t i o n - p r o d u c t i o n w e l l s . Be c a u s e o f th e
a mo u n t o f h e a v y o i l i n r e s e r v e a n d t h e p r e s e n c e o f a
n a t u r a l C O 2 s o u r c e , i t w a s d e c i d e d t o s t u d y t h e
e f f e c ts o f a d d i ng C O 2 t o s t e a m o n t h e r e c o v e r y o f
Ba t1 K o z l u c a h e a v y o i l a t l a b o r a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s .
2 Ex per i menta l a ppa ra tus a nd pro cedure
2 1 Laboratory model
I n r e c o v e r y p r o c e s s e s , t h e i n j e c t io n a n d p r o d u c i n g
w e l l s c a n b e a r r a n g e d i n s o m e t y p e o f p a t t e rn . F r o m
d .
@
p r o d u c l n g w i l l s
l l n m o f
_ _ l ~ l la rn o u n d ~ l ~
d v ~ l l p a e l n g
F i g . 1 . I n v e r t e d r e g u l a r s e v e n - s p o t w e l l a r r a y .
t h i s p a t t e r n a s ma l l e l e me n t c a n b e d e r i v e d b y s y m-
me t r y t o r e p r e s e n t t h e f l o o d i n a mo d e l s t u d y . T h e
f l o o d p e r f o r ma n c e f o r t h e e n t i r e p a t t e r n c a n b e d e -
v e l o p e d b y r e p r o d u c i n g t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e p r o -
c e s s i n t h i s s ma l l e l e me n t . T h e s ma l l e s t e l e me n t
f r o m t h e p a t t e r n t h a t c a n b e u s e d a s a mo d e l i s
d e r i v e d b y c o n s t r u c t i n g l i n e s t h r o u g h a l l p l a n e s o f
s y m m e t r y . T h e s e l i n e s o f s y m m e t r y r e p r e s e n t i nv a r i-
an t l i nes across which there i s no f low. In th i s work ,
t h e i n v e r t e d r e g u l a r s e v e n - s p o t p a t t e r n i s s t u d i e d .
T h i s p a t t e r n c o n s i s t s o f o n e i n j e c t i o n w e l l s u r -
r o u n d e d b y s i x p r o d u c i n g w e l l s . F i g . I s h o w s t h e
a r r a n g e me n t o f w e l l s i n a h e x a g o n a l a r r a y . T h e u s e
o f t h i s s y mme t r y t o d i v i d e t h e p a t t e r n i n t o s ma l l e r
e l e me n t s i s a l s o s h o w n i n F i g . 1 . T h e s h a d e d a r e a i s
t h e s ma l l e s t mo d e l l i n g e l e me n t o b t a i n e d f r o m t h i s
p a t t e r n a n d r e p r e s e n t s t h e mo d e l s h a p e u s e d . T h e
i n j e c t i o n w e l l o f t h e mo d e l a c t u a l l y r e p r e s e n t s 1 / 1 2
of an in j ec t ion wel l i n the pa t t e rn , where as the
T a b l e 1
T h e p r o p e r t i e s o f p h y s i c a l a n d p r o t o t y p e m o d e l s
P a t t e r n S c a l i n g p a r a m e t e r P r o t o t y p e P h y s i c a l m o d e l
1 / 1 2 t h o f i n v e r te d r e g u l a r 7 - s p o t 1 / 1 2 t h o f i n v e r te d r e g u l ar 7 - s p o t
D i s t a n c e b e t w e e n i n j e c t i o n L p / L m = a = 250 202 . 5 m
a n d p r o d u c i n g w e l l s
T h i c k n e s s H p / H m = a 2 5 . 0 m
P e r m e a b i l i t y K p / K m = l / a 4 0 .0 m D
P o r o s i t y 1 2 5 . 4
T e m p e r a t u r e - 5 0 . 0 C
O i l v i s c o s i t y 1 6 0 7 . 0 m P a s
T i m e
t p / t m = a z
4 3 . 4 d a y s
P r e s s u r e d r o p A p p / A P m = a 3 4 4 7 . 5 k P a
In jec t ion r a t e Q p / Q m = a 1 4.4 m 3 / d a y
8 1 . 0 c m
1 0 . 0 c m
10 . 0 D
3 8 . 0
5 0 . 0 C
6 0 7 . 0 m P a s
1 rn in
2 0 . 7 k P a
4 0 .0 c m 3 / m i n
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
5/17
F. Giimrah, S. Ba~cl / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 18 1997) 113-129 117
WET TEST HEATER
METER HEAT ER ONTROLLER TEMPERATURECA NNE R CONT ROLLE R
~ i i - ~ ; 1 ~ 1 I ] 1 , ' t ' [ I ~ -ROTAMETER ~,J2 )~
',I .- ' ,', ,/ i k ,:,:,,','.~..... : co
r - - T - T _ l . . . . . . . . . o o L _ J
b : - . : : : -'/ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J STEAM
SEPARATORS 3-D MOD EL GENERATOR
F i g . 2 . A s c h e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t io n o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s e t u p .
G rou p 1 :vert ical in ject ion-vert ical production
Injection we ll (vertical)
. ~ T l e n g t h = 9 .7 cm
a = 40.5 cm ~ per fo ra tion= 4 x5 mm
P r o d u c t i o n e l l
vert ical) ~l~ _ , , / ~'~
length = 9 ,7 om
pe r fo r a ti on= 4 x5 mm h = 10o re
produotlon c = 81 m Injection
Well well
G rou p 2 : vert ical in ject ion-hor izon tal production
G r o u p 2 A P~
le ng th = 40,5 m / ~ ~ T
per fora t ion= 10 x 2 .5 mm f / -
r.5 ~ A I~ li l
~roduot lon InJeot lon
w e l l / . ~ w e l l
G r o u p 2 B . , / ~ ~
7.5
~ ~ o d u ~ o n Inj~=tlon
Well well
G r o u p 3 : horizontal in ject ion-hor izontal production
/ - In ject ion we l l (hor izontal)
j ~ l eng th =39 , 2 cm
G r o u p 3 C , / / ~ p e r f o r e t l o n = 10 x 2 .5 m m
inj~ tion
/
Group 3D. / / ~ o~ ,,~
7 .5 ~ L ~
produo~on inJeo~on
well w~l
F i g 3 . W e l l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s .
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
6/17
[ 18 F. Giimrah, S. Ba~,cl/Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 18 1997) 113-129
p r o d u c t i o n w e l l o f t h e m o d e l r ep r e s en t s 1 / 6 o f a
p r o d u c t i o n w e l l . T h e m o d e l w a s t r i a n g u l a r i n s h a p e .
A s c a l in g f a c t o r o f 2 5 0 w a s a s c e r t a i n e d t o c o r re -
s p o n d t o t h e p r o t o t y p e s i n t h e f i e l d . P u j o l a n d
B o b e r g ' s ( 1 9 7 2 ) t h e r m a l s c a l i n g a p p r o a c h w a s u s e d
i n th e d e s i g n o f t h e s c a le d m o d e l . T h e p r o p e r t i e s o f
t h e s c a l e d m o d e l a n d i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o t o t y p e a r e
g i v e n i n T a b l e 1 .
A s c h e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l
s e t - u p i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g . 2 . T h e s e t - u p i s c o m p r i s e d
o f f o u r m a i n p a r t s : a s t e a m a n d C O 2 i n j e ct i o n s y s -
t e m , a p h y s i c a l m o d e l , a d a t a r e c o r d i n g s y s t e m a n d a
p r o d u c t i o n s y s t e m . T h e w e l l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a r e d e -
l i n e a te d i n F i g . 3 . T h e m o d e l h a s a d i m e n s i o n o f 8 1
c m 7 0 . 1 c m x 4 0 . 5 c m w i t h a t h i c k n e s s o f l 0
c m . T h e t o p o f th e m o d e l w a s r e m o v a b l e a n d a c ts a s
a f l a n g e s o t h a t w a t e r , o i l a n d c r u s h e d l i m e s t o n e
m i x t u r e c a n b e p a c k e d e a s i l y . T o m e a s u r e t h e t h r e e -
d i m e n s i o n a l t e m p e r a t u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n s i d e t h e
m o d e l , 6 2 t h e r m o c o u p l e s w e r e i n s t a l l e d a t t h e t o p ,
c e n t r e a n d t h e b o t t o m p l a n e s o f th e m o d e l . I n s u l a t i n g
m a t e r i a l s a n d h e a t e r s w e r e a l s o u s e d i n t h e m o d e l .
2 2 Experimental procedure
T h e p r e m i x i n g m e t h o d w a s u s e d i n p r ep a r i n g t h e
u n c o n s o l i d a t e d l i m e s t o n e p a c k m i x t u r e s f o r t h e e x -
p e r i m e n t s . T h e w a t e r a n d c l e a n c r u s h e d l i m e s t o n e
w e r e m i x e d i n i ti a ll y t o m e e t t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f a
w a t e r - w e t s y s t e m . T h e n t h e o i l w a s m i x e d h o m o g e -
n e o u s l y w i t h t h e m t o y i e l d t h e d e s i r e d f l u i d s a t u r a -
t i o n s a n d c a r e f u l l y p a c k e d i n t o t h e m o d e l . T h e o i l
a n d w a t e r s a t u r a ti o n s w e r e c h o s e n a s 7 5 a n d 2 5 ,
r e s p e c t i v e l y , a n d k e p t t h e s a m e f o r e a c h e x p e r i m e n t .
T h e l im e s t o n e p a c k w i t h p o r e v o l u m e o f 5 3 7 3 c m 3
g i v e s 3 8 p o r o s i t y a n d a b s o l u t e l i q u id p e r m e a b i l i t y
o f 1 0 d a rc i es . A f t e r p a c k i n g , t he m o d e l w a s m o v e d
h o r i z o n t a l l y i n s i d e t h e i n s u l a t i o n j a c k e t , t h e s e t - u p
w a s t h e n p r e p a r e d f o r t h e t e s t a n d t h e m o d e l w a s
h e a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y t o 5 0 C w h i c h w a s t h e d e s i r e d
r e s e r v o i r t e m p e r a t u r e . T o i n i t i a t e a n e x p e r i m e n t , t h e
s t e a m g e n e r a t o r w a s b r o u g h t t o i t s m a x i m u m t e m -
p e r a t u r e a n d t h e m a s s f l o w c o n t r o l l e r w a s s e t t o t h e
d e s i r e d C O 2 f lo w r a t e. T h e s i m u l t a n e o u s i n j e c ti o n o f
s t e a m a n d C O 2 w a s s t ar te d . T e m p e r a t u r e d i s t r ib u t i o n
i n s i d e t h e m o d e l w a s c o n t i n u o u s l y r e g i s t e r e d . T h e
o t h e r p a r a m e t e r s t h a t w e r e r e c o r d e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e
t e s t s w e r e f l u i d i n j e c t i o n a n d p r o d u c t i o n p r e s s u r e s
O_
g
O
o
o
>
J
o
1 0 0 0 0
1
1O 0
0
BATI KOZLUCACRUDEOIL
1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 g o 6 0 i o
8
T E M P E R A T U R E ( C )
F i g . 4 . V l sc o s i u e s f B a t lK o z lu c a r u d eo i l 12 . 4AP I) .
a n d o i l , w a t e r a n d g a s p r o d u c t i o n d a t a . T h e e f f l u e n t s
f r o m t h e m o d e l w e r e c o l l e c t e d in a t w o - s t a g e s e p a r a -
t i o n s y s te m . B o t h o f t h e m a r e o p e r a t in g a t a t m o -
s p h e r ic p r e s s u r e . T h e t o p o f t h e s e c o n d s e p a r a t o r w a s
c o n n e c t e d t o a w e t t e s t m e t e r t o m e a s u r e t h e a m o u n t
o f g a s p r o d u c e d . T o c o n t r o l t h e p r e s s u r e o f t h e
p r o d u c t i o n w e l l , b a c k p r e s s u r e r e g u l a t o r s w e r e l o -
c a t e d a t t h e f lu i d s t r e a m e n d o f th e f i rs t s e p a r a t o r
a n d a t t h e u p s t r e a m e n d o f th e f i r s t se p a r a to r . T h e
b a c k p r e s s u r e r e g u l a t o r s w e r e a d j u s t e d t o a p r e s s u r e
w h i c h w a s ~ 1 3 .8 k P a ( A p = 2 p s i ) l o w e r t h a n t h e
v a l u e o f i n j e c t i o n p r e s s u r e . T h e l i g h t e r - o i l f ra c t i o n s ,
w h i c h w e r e t e r m e d c o n d e n s a t e d u r i n g t h i s w o r k ,
w e r e p r o d u c e d f r o m t h e s e c o n d s e p a r a t o r . B a t 1 K o -
z l u c a c r u d e o i l ( 1 2 . 4 A P I ) f r o m s o u t h e a s t e r n T u r k e y
w a s u s e d . T h e v i s c o s i t y o f t h e o il s a m p l e i s il l u s -
t r a t e d i n F i g . 4 .
3 R e s u l t s a n d d i s c u s s i o n
A t o t a l o f 1 7 e x p e r i m e n t s w e r e c o n d u c t e d w i t h a
p h y s i c a l m o d e l r e p r e s e n ti n g 1 / 1 2 t h o f a n in v e r te d
r e g u l a r s e v e n - s p o t p a tt e rn . T h e a i m o f t h e p r e s e n t
s t u d y w a s t o i n v e s t ig a t e t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f s te a m
f l o o d i n g i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f C O 2 f o r h e a v y - o i l r e c o v -
e r y b y u s i n g v e r t i c a l a n d h o r i z o n t a l w e l l c o n f i g u r a -
t i o n s . T h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n
T a b l e 2 .
T h e e x p e r i m e n t s w e r e c o n d u c t e d u n d e r t h re e m a i n
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
7/17
F. Gi~mrah, S. Ba~ct / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 18 1997) 113-129
119
Tab le 2
E x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s
STEAM NJECTION STEAM C0 2 INJECTION
ell
c o n f i g u r a t i o n c o = / , . ~ . ~ c o = c o = . . = o . ~ c o = ~ , . ~ = ~ . = . . . . c o = c o = / , .~ = ~o . = . . . c o =
P r m l J m R i ce R i t e : St wr n P r l ll l Jr e R l a R J I ~ p r u i J r l R i l l ~ ~ P r l l i J r l R a l R i m
(1112thof inverted egular7-s po t pa ttern) , a-,*o R-,,o ~=o Rmo
[dm3,4. ] [kP I] [c. tmin] [c/mtn] l [dm3/~] [kP i] [/~ ln] [c, 'mk' l ] fdm3/I . ] [kP I] [c/mt~][cc#n ln] . [~] [ I
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
8/17
1 2 0
F. Giimrah, S. Ba~cl / Journal of Petroleum Sctence and Engmeermg 18 1997) 113-129
dm3/1 were carried out. Fig. 5 compares the experi-
mental recoveries as a function of pore volumes of
injected steam as cold water equivalent (cwe). The
highest recovery was obtained with the CO2/steam
ratio of 22.3 din3/1. The oil recovery was the same
for the CO2/steam ratio of 84.3 dm3/l when com-
pared to the steam-only case. This result was at-
tributed to the highest amount of injected gas with
steam. As a result it might prevent the movement of
oil through the production well because of higher
mobility of gas. For the steam-alone test, the recov-
ery was increased after 1 PV of steam injection. The
22.3-dm3/1 CO~-st eam mixture recovered 34.4 of
OOIP and the steam-only case recovered 7.8 of
OOIP when 1 PV of steam was injected into the
model. The recovery of the steam-only case was
reached to 33.6 of OOIP when the injected amount
of steam was 1.68 PV. The steam/oil ratios were
6.83 cm 3/ cm 3 for the steam-only case, 18.83
cm 3/ cm 3 for the CO2/ ste am ratio of 84.3 dm3/1,
and 4.31 cm 3/ cm 3 for the CO 2/s tea m ratio of 22.3
dm3/l at the end of the tests. Therefore, a lower
amount of steam was required to produce the same
amount of crude at the CO2/steam ratio of 22.3
dm3/1.
3.1.2. Group 2; t erticaI injection-horizontal produc-
tion scheme
In this group of tests, a horizontal production well
was placed at two different locations of the model.
Therefore the experiments were done under two
subgroups, 2A and 2B. Scheme A includes a hori-
zontal production well along the shorter side of the
model and scheme B has a horizontal well located at
the longer side of the model (Fig. 3).
3.1.2.1. Group 2A. A total of four experiments were
conducted. The CO2/steam ratios were 14.2, 29.8
and 36.4 din3/1, and a steam-alone test was done to
compare the performance of the steam -CO 2 experi-
ments. Fig. 6 shows the results of these experiments.
The highest recovery was obtained for the
CO2/steam ratio of 14.2 dm3/I. The steam-only
case supplied the lowest recovery. The recoveries of
other tests were ranged between them. Oil recoveries
were 58.3 of OOIP for the CO2/ stea m ratio of
14.2 dm3/1, 43.2 of OOIP for 29.8 dm3/1, 41.9
of OOIP for 36.4 dm3/l , and 23.8 of OOIP for the
100
9 0 G R O U P 2 A
~ 8 0
oO 7 0 [ CO.STEAM~T[
6
[ u 5 0 -
0 4 0
0 _ , ~
w
r r 3 0 -
O 2 0 -
10-
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2 5 3 5
S T E A M I N JE C T E D ( P V o f c w e )
F i g 6 . O i l r e c o v e r i e s f o r v e r t i c a l i n J e c t i o n - h o r i z o n t a l p r o d u c t i o n
s c h e m e g r o u p 2 A )
steam-only case. The steam/oil ratios at 1 PV of
steam injection were 5.6 cm3 /c m 3 for the steam-
alone test and 2.32 cm3 /c m 3 for the 14.2-dm3/1
CO2/steam ratio test. In all CO2-steam experi-
ments, the oil production rates were high and tapered
off rapidly after 1 PV of steam injection. The pres-
ence of a horizontal producer prevented the early
production of CO 2 gas which was accumulated at
the top of the model. Then, it exerted an extra force
to drive the heated oil through the production well.
The contact area of the horizontal production well is
four times larger than that of the vertical well. This
effect is also an important factor for higher oil
production rate.
3.1.2.2. Group 2B.
In this group, the production well
was placed along the longer side of the model, it has
the same length of the production well of group 2A.
A total of four experiments were done. One of them
is steam alone and the others are CO2-steam experi-
ments in which the CO2/steam ratios were 14.1,
24.3 and 140 din3/1. Fig. 7 shows the oil recoveries
of these tests. For the 14.1-dm3/1 test, the highest oil
recovery was obtained as 52.4 of OOIP. The re-
coveries were 36.0 of OOIP for 24.3 dm3/k 28.8
of OOIP for 140 dm3 /l, and 33.6 of OOIP for the
steam-only case. The highest COJsteam ratio case
recovered lower oil than that of the steam-only case.
The presence of a larger amount of CO 2 supplied
worst performance than the other cases. For higher
CO2/s tea m ratio, a larger amount of CO 2 was pro-
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
9/17
F. Giimrah, S. Ba~ct / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 18 1997) 113-129
121
1 0 0 -
9o
E 8 o -
O 7 0 -
uJ 50-
O 4 0 - / ~
O _ - - - - - I ~ [o I
L _ J
r r 3 0 -
---_1
O 2 0
1 0 ~ . + . ~ , , ,
0
0 0 . 5 1 1 . 5 2 2 . 5
S T E A M I N J E C T E D ( P V o f c w e )
F i g . 7 . O l l r e c o v e r i e s f o r v e r t i c a l i n j e c U o n - h o r i z o n t a l p r o d u c t i o n
s c h e m e g r o u p 2 B )
1 0 0
G R O U P 3 C
9 0
~ 8 0 -
0 7 0 -
6 0 -
> .
r r
5 0 -
>
0 40 - ~
W
~ 3 0
2 0 ~
10-
0 : .~-~-- ~
0 0 . 5 1 1 . 5 2 2
S T E A M I N J E C T E D ( P V o f c w e )
F i g . 8 . O l l r e c o v e r i e s f o r h o r i z o n t a l i n j e c t i o n - h o r i z o n t a l p r o d u c -
t ion schem e g roup 3C).
duced, and as a result, steam followed the path
already swept by the CO 2. This result has also
pointed out the importance of using optimum mix-
ture of steam and COt in the tests. The ste am/ oi l
ratios at 1 PV of steam injection were 2.60 and 3.97
cm 3/ cm 3 for the stea m-CO 2 (14.2 dm3/1) and
steam-alone tests, respectively. The co-injection of
CO 2 with steam supplied better performance till a
certain CO2/steam ratio was reached.
3.1.3. Group 3; horizontal injection horizontal pro
duction scheme
3.1.3.1. Group 3C. The horizontal production well
was placed along the shorter side of the model. The
location is 2.5 cm higher than the bottom of the
model. In this group, two s team- CO 2 tests and one
steam-alone test were carried out to investigate the
performance of CO2-steam mixture in horizontal
well combinations (Fig. 8). Oil recoveries were
30.3 of OOIP for the CO2/ ste am ratio of 49.7
din3/1, 25.3 of OOIP for 13.4 dm3/1, and 8.8 of
OO1P for the steam-alone test. If the recovery of the
test of 49.7 dm3/1 CO2/steam ratio is compared
with the 13.4-dm3/1 case, a 3.7 times higher amount
of CO 2 had to be injected to attain only 20 incre-
mental oil recovery over the 13.4-dm3/1 case. There-
fore, the cost effect of injecting larger amounts of
CO 2 gas should be considered. Both st eam-C O,
tests recovered more oil than the steam-only case.
These results were also observed for the values of
steam/oil ratios. The steam/oil ratio was 16.6
cm 3/ cm 3 for the steam-only case, 5.8 c m3 /c m 3 for
the CO2/steam ratio of 49.7 dm3/l, and 5.2
cm 3/ cm 3 for the CO2/ ste am ratio of 13.4 din3/1.
3.1.3.2. Group 3D. The horizontal production well
was placed along the longer side of the model. The
location of horizontal injection well is the same as in
group 3C and its position is 2.5 cm higher than the
bottom of the model. Fig. 9 compares the recoveries
of two steam-C O 2 tests and one steam-alone test.
Recoveries were 51.1 of OOIP and 8.9 of OOIP
for the CO2/steam ratios of 11.7 and 38.1 din3/1,
respectively. For the steam-only case, it was 18.4
1 0 0
O
>-
t r
IaJ
>
o
o
w
rc
90
80-
7 0 -
60-
50-
40-
30-
20
10-
0 - . 4 -
0
G R O U P D ]
[ ' : ' ~ - ' ~ - ~ ' ~ = I ~ [ ]
]
]
0 . 5 1 1 . 5 2 2 . 5
S T E A M I N J E C T E D ( P V o f cw e )
F i g . 9 . O i l r e c o v e r i e s f o r h o r i z o n ta l i n j e c t i o n - h o r i z o n t a l p r o d u c -
t i o n s c h e m e g r o u p 3 D ).
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
10/17
122 F. Gi imrah , S . Ba~c t / Journa l o f Pe t ro leum Sc ience and Engineer ing 18 1997) 11 3-1 29
S T E A M O N L Y G R O U P 3 D
A IN JEC T ED ST E AM =O .0 4 5 PV A '
INJECTION
A I N J E C T E D S T E A M = l . 2 3 0 P V A
I N J E C T I O N
A I N J E C T E D S T E A M = 1 . 6 8 0 P V A '
I N JE C T IO N T e m p e r a t u r e s in C
P R O D U C T I O N I N J E C T I O N
Fig. 10. Temp erature distribution of steam-alone test for horizontal injec tion -ho rizo ntal production group 3D).
S T E A M - C O 2 G R O U P 3D
C 0 2 / S T E A M R A T I O = 3 8 . 1 d m 3 1 L
A I N JE C T E D S T E A M = 0 . 2 9 0 P V A '
f -d
INJE TION
A I N J E C T E D S T E A M = 1 , 2 9 0 P V A
I N J E C T I O N
A IN JEC T ED ST EAM = 2 .0 5 0 PV A '
I N J E C T I O N
T e m p e r a t u r e s in C
P R O D U C T I O N I N J E C T I O N
F i g . | 1 . T e mp e r atu re d i s t r i b u t io n o f s te a m- C O ~ te st f o r h o r i zo n ta l i n j e c t i o n - h o r i zo n ta l p r o d u c t i o n ( g r o u p 3 D ) ,
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
11/17
F. Gi~mrah, S. Ba~ct Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 18 1997) 113-129 123
o f O O I P . T h e s t e a m / o i l r a ti o s w e r e 8 .5 c m 3 / c m 3
f o r th e s t e a m- o n l y c a s e , 1 9 .8 c m 3 / c m 3 f o r t he 3 8 . 1 -
d i n 3 /1 c a s e, a n d 3 . 8 c m 3 / c m 3 f o r th e l l . 7 - d m 3 / 1
c a s e . I n t h i s s c h e me , t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e h o r i -
z o n t a l p r o d u c e r a n d t h e h o r i z o n t a l i n j e c t o r w a s t h e
o t h e r f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g t h e r e c o v e r y o f o i l f r o m t h e
m o d e l . T w o r e p r e s e n t a t i v e e x p e r i m e n t s , s t e a m o n l y
a n d s t e a m - C O z 3 8. 1 d m 3 / 1 ) a r e s e le c t e d t o s h o w
t h e t y p i c a l b e h a v i o u r o f t h e t e mp e r a t u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n
in the mo del tes t s F igs . 10 and 11). Te m pera tu re
d a t a w e r e t a k e n f r o m t h r e e l e v e l s : t o p , c e n t r e , a n d
b o t t o m o f t h e mo d e l . S t e a m t e n d s t o r e a c h t h e
p r o d u c i n g e n d b y f l o w i n g t h r o u g h t h e u p p e r p a r t s o f
t h e mo d e l . T h i s w a s d e mo n s t r a t e d b y t h e h i g h e r
t e mp e r a t u r e s b e i n g r e c o r d e d a t t h e t o p r a t h e r t h a n a t
t h e c e n t r e a n d b o t t o m o f th e m o d e l . E f f e c t i v e h e a t i n g
o c c u r r e d a f t e r s t e a m b r e a k t h r o u g h i n t h e v e r t i c a l l y
d o w n w a r d d i r e c t i o n a l o n g t h e mo d e l , i n d i c a t i n g
s t e a m- z o n e e n l a r g e me n t . A l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f t h e
m o d e l w a s t h e n h e a t e d b y s t e a m . T h e t e m p e r a t u r e s
o f t h e b o t t o m o f t h e mo d e l w e r e l o w e r i n t h e s t e a m-
a l o n e t e s t a s c o mp a r e d t o t h e s t e a m - C O 2 t es t.
3.1.4. Comparison between the runs
3.1.4.1. Steam-alone tests. A c o mp a r i s o n o f t h e r e -
c o v e r y e f f i c i e n c i e s o f d i ff e r e n t w e l l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s i s
s h o w n i n F i g . 1 2 . F r o m t h e c o m p a r i s o n o f o i l r e c o v -
e r i e s f o r s t e a m- a l o n e t e s t s o f f i v e w e l l c o n f i g u r a -
t ions , a ver t i ca l i n j ec to r and a hor i zon ta l p roducer
w e l l sc h e m e g r o u p 2 B ) g a v e a b e t t er p e r f o r m a n c e
t h a n t h e o t h e r te s ts . T h e r e c o v e r i e s w e r e t h e s a me f o r
t h e v e r t i c a l i n j e c t i o n - p r o d u c t i o n w e l l s s c h e me g r o u p
1 ) a n d t h e h o r i z o n t a l i n j e c t i o n - p r o d u c t i o n w e l l s
s c h e m e g r o u p 3 C) t i ll 1 .1 PV o f s t e a m i n j e c t io n i s
r e a c h e d . T h e n mo r e o i l w a s p r o d u c e d f o r g r o u p 1 .
A l t h o u g h t h e u l t i ma t e r e c o v e r i e s o f t h e v e r t i c a l i n -
j e c t i o n - h o r i z o n t a l p r o d u c t io n w e ll s s c h e m e g r o u p
2 A ) a n d g r o u p 1 w e r e t h e s a m e u p t o 2 P V o f s t e a m
i n j e c t i o n , t h e r e c o v e r y w a s mu c h h i g h e r u p t o 1 . 2
PV o f s t e a m i n j e c t i o n i n g r o u p 2 A . T h i s w a s a t -
t r i b u t e d t o t h e b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t o f t h e h o r i z o n t a l
p r o d u c e r w h i c h a c c e l e r a t e d t h e o i l p r o d u c t i o n . T h e
l o w e s t u l t i ma t e r e c o v e r y w a s o b t a i n e d f o r g r o u p 3 C ,
t h e d i s ta n c e b e t w e e n t h e h o r i z o n t a l i n j e c t o r a n d h o r i -
1 0 0 -
9 0 -
8 0
0_
O 7 0
O
6 0
>-
n
LU 50-
>
O
j 4 0 -
LLI
r r
3 0 -
O
2 0 -
1 0 -
0 :
I S T E A M O N L Y
i v e r t J c a l l r t j - h o r i z o r r t a l p r o d g r o u p ? A ) I
_ _
I I I l I [
0 . 5 1 1 . 5 2 2 . 5
S T E A M I N J E C T E D ( P V o f c w e )
Fig. 12. Com parisonof oil recoveries or steam-alone ests.
3 3 . 5
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
12/17
124 F. Gi imrah , S . Ba~c t / Jo urna l o f Pe t ro leum Sc ience and Engineer ing 18 1997) 11 3-12 9
1 0 0
13..
0
0
>-
n,-
IJJ
>
0
0
HJ
r
0
9 0 - [ S T E A M - C O 2
I(C02/steam ra tio) I
8 0 - [ v o ~ . ,o , ~ o . = ~ r o d . o r o o ~ . 4 ~ , ]
~ 0 - I ~ . . . . ~ , ,o , -~ . . . . O , o r * .o ~ o o o ~ D , , ,~
6 0 , / ~ . ~ - E ~ . . . . . . . ~ . x
, . > , ~ , .. X ' [ v e ~ c a lm -hor i zonta l rod ,g roup2B 14.1
4 0 - ..~ > ~-c - - j m
~ u ..':~ r - - - -
. ~ ~ , l l I l - - . ~ ~ p r od . ,g r o u p (2 2 ..3 )]
2 0 4 j ~ ~ ~ -
, , ,
0 . 5
1 1 . 5 2
S T E A M I N J E C T E D ( P V o f c w e )
Fig. 13. Comparison of oil recoveries for steam CO~ tests.
2.5
zontal producer was another important factor for the
displacement of oil. At 1 PV of steam injection, the
recovery of group 2B was 33.6 of OOIP compared
to 7.8 of OOIP for group 3C.
3.1.5. St ea m CO 2 tests
3.1.5.1. Oil recoveries. Fig. 13 shows the compari-
son of the results of tests which were conducted at
13_
O
O
> -
r r
u J
>
O
O
U J
r r
O
1 0 0
9 0 -
8 0 -
7 0 -
S T E A M - C O 2
~ , e r t ic a l n j . - h o r i z o n t a lp r o d , g ro u p 2 A ]
6 0 -
~ . ~
5 0 ~ , ........... ~ e r t ic a l n j - h o r i z o n t a l p r o d . , g r o u p 2 B
~ : ~ '- . ~ - .. ~ p , . ~ v en a l in j .- v e r ti c a l p r o d , g r o u p I [
2 0 ' - . ~ - - -
~ ' ~ Z ' ' . ~ [ h o r iz o n ta ln j -hor i zonta l rod , g roup 3D
l o ~ ( ~ , ~ - ~ - - ~ . . . .
I I hor i zonta ln j .-h . . . . ~ p rod , g roup 30 I
0 l , T , ; , , ,
0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 6 0
C O 2 / S T E A M R A T I O ( d m 3 / L )
Ftg. 14. Oil recoveries as a fund]on of CO2/steam ratio.
-
8/12/2019 (Steam-CO 2 Drive Experiments Using Horizontal and Vertical)
13/17
F. Giimrah. S Ba~,ct Journal of Petroleum Sctence and Engmeering 18 1997) 113-129 1 2 5
a b o u t th e s a m e C O 2 / s t e a m r a t io s a n d d if f e r e n t w e l l
c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . T h e r e s u lt s o f t e st s h a v i n g t h e h i g h e s t
r e c o v e r i e s w e r e p l o t t e d i n t h i s f i g u r e . T h e r e c o v e r y
e f f i c i e n c y o f g r o u p 3 C w a s a l s o t h e l o w e s t o n e
a m o n g t h e s t e a m - C O 2 t es ts , b u t g r o u p 2 A g a v e t h e
b e s t p e r f o r m a n c e w h e n c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r t e s t s . O i l
r e c o v e ri e s w e r e 5 8 . 3 o f O O I P a n d 2 5 . 3 o f O O I P
f o r t h e C O 2 / s t e a m r a ti o o f 1 4 .2 d m 3 / 1 ( g r o u p 2 A )
a n d 1 3 .4 d m 3 / 1 ( g r o u p 3 C ) , r e s p e c t i v e l y . F i g . 1 4
c o m p a r e s t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l r e c o v e r i e s a s a f u n c t i o n
o f C O 2 / s t e a m r a ti o a t 1 P V o f s te a m i n je c te d . T h e
C O 2 / s t e a m r a ti o w a s ra n g e d f r o m z e r o t o 1 4 0 d m 3 / 1 .
T h e r e c o v e r y w a s i n c r e a s e d u p t o a c e r t a i n p o i n t
w i t h i n c r e a s i n g C O 2 / s t e a m r a t i o , a f t e r w h i c h a d i -
m i n i s h i n g e f f e ct w a s o b s e r v e d . T h e u s e o f to o m u c h
C O 2 c a n h a v e u n d e s i r a b l e e f f e c t s . F i r s t ly , t h e g a s
o c c u p i e s v o l u m e a n d r e d u c es t h e a m o u n t o f s te a m
i n j e c t e d . S e c o n d l y , i f t o o m u c h g a s i s i n j e c t e d , i t
i n c r e a s e s t h e g a s s a t u r a t i o n f l o w i n g b e t w e e n t h e
i n j e c t i o n a n d p r o d u c t i o n w e l l s a n d c a u s e s c h a n -
n e l l in g o f t h e s t e a m t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n p o i n t . T h i s
e f f e c t i s n o t e d i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d
h e r e b y t h e r e d u c e d r e c o v e r y a n d l o w e r s t e a m i n j e c -
t i v it y a t h i g h e r a m o u n t s o f C O 2 . H e n c e b y t h is
a n a l y s i s , i t b e c a m e a p p a r e n t t h a t a n o p t i m u m
C O 2 / s t e a m r a t io e x i s te d , w h i c h i s ~ 14 d m 3 / 1 f o r
B a u K o z l u c a c r u d e o i l ( 1 2 . 4 A P I ) w h i c h c a u s e d t h e
b e s t p e r f o r m a n c e i n te r m s o f h i g h e s t o i l r e c o v e r y .
T h e C O 2 / s t e a m r a t i o t h a t r e s u l t e d i n t h e m a x i m u m
o i l r e c o v e r y w a s t h e s a m e v a l u e f o r a l l w e l l c o n f i g u -
r a t i o n s e x c e p t i n g r o u p 3 C . T h e i n c r e m e n t a l o i l
r e c o v e r y o v e r t h e s t e a m - o n l y c a s e d e c r e a s e d w i th
i n c r e a s i n g C O ~ / s t e a m r a t i o . T h e r e f o r e t h e v a l u e o f
C O 2 / s t e a m r a ti o w a s o n e o f th e i m p o r t a n t fa c t o rs
w h i c h a f f e c t e d th e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e p r o c e s s . T h e
o t h e r f a ct o r w a s t h e t y p e o f in j e c to r a n d / o r p r o -
d u c e r , w h e t h e r t h e w e l l w a s p l a c e d i n h o r i z o n t a l o r
v e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n . T h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e w e l l s a l s o
a f f e c t e d t h e e f f i c ie n c y o f p ro c e s s . I f th e y w e r e c l o s e
t o e a c h o t h e r , b e c a u s e o f h i g h e r f l u i d m o b i l i t y , e a r l y
b r e a k t h r o u g h o c c u r r e d . A s a r e s u l t , t h e m a j o r i t y o f
s u b s e q u e n t l y i n j e c te d f l u i d s f o l l o w e d t h is e s t a b l i s h e d
p a t h o f l e a st r e s i s ta n c e a n d p r o c e s s e f f i c i e n c y w a s
i m p a i r e d .
2 0 0
1 8 0 -
2 1 6 0 -
E
o 1 4 0 -
co
(3_
O 1 2 0 -
uJ
r r l O 0 -
z
O
r - - 80-
C.)
-3
(3
O 6 0 -
E
0 .
.J
5
s team-CO2 , (OPR)
4 0 - - i ~/ ,-
20 - ...i ~
O '
0
v e r t i c a l i n j e c t i o n - h o r i z o n t a l p r o d u c t i o n , g r o u p 2 B
CO2/ste~'n atio= 141 dm3/L ]
~.. t lW_:~,.-stea. , I , - - - o n ly , ( SO R )
, ,~ A ' k ~ . , ~ - - - - - - - I ID ~ s te a m - C O 2 , ( S O R )
I s team on ly , (OPR)
~] i-
... ~ ..... F i ........
5. 5 1 . 2
S T E A M I N J E C T E D ( P V o f c w e )
Fig. 15. Production data for vertical rejection-horizontal production (group 2B).
1 0
- 9
- 8
- 7
- 6
- 5
- 4
- 3
-2
-1
0
2 . 5
-
o
o,9_,
O
O
V--
top related