EOR Course Slides by Farouq Ali

ENHANCED OIL
RECOVERY
Principles, Importance,
Status, and Operation
S.M. Farouq Ali
HOR Heavy Oil Recovery Technologies Ltd.
e-mail: farouq@telusplanet.net
SMFA-ST 20071128
(Numbers give reserves in billions of barrels)
SAUDI ARABIA
(260)
IRAQ
(115)
OTHER
MIDDLE
EAST
(37)
ABU DHABI
(92)
KUWAIT
(99)
LIBYA
(41)
NIGERIA
(36)
CANADA
(179)
IRAN
(136)
KAZAKHSTAN
(30)
USA
(22)
RUSSIA
(60)
ALGERIA
(12)
CHINA MEXICO NORTH

SEA
(12)
(16)
(12)
OTHER
(78)
VENEZUELA
(80)
WORLD OIL
CONSUMPTION
IN 2006
SMFA-ST 20071128
31 billion barrels
SMFA20070423
(Data from Oil & Gas Journal, Dec.18, 2006)
al
u
q
e
s
i
e
ld.
uar oil
r
q
o
s
w
h
s
Eac e year of the
n
n
to o umptio
s
c on
2
World oil consumption

2006 85 million B/D
2030 115 million B/D
7
1
9
1
il
o
d
rl
n
o
o
i
W
t
p
m
u
/D
s
B
n
o
c
ion
l
l
i
m
1.5
SMFA-ST 20071128
CONTENTS
General concepts
High pressure gas drives miscible and
immiscible
Chemical recovery methods
Thermal recovery methods
Related topics
SMFA-ST 20071128
GENERAL CONCEPTS
SMFA-ST 20071128
RESOURCE, RESERVES,
RECOVERY FACTOR
Reserves = Resource x Recovery Factor
Resource is what is in the reservoir
Reserves are what is producible using current
technology under current economics
Recovery Factor is the key number that we need

SMFA-ST 20071128
RECOVERY FACTORS
:
s
r
o
t
ac
F
y
Ke ogy
Solution gas drive 10-15% light oil
l
o
es
e
i
t
G
r
e
p
o
r
P
l
3-5% heavy oil Oi
Water drive
25-50% light oil
5-10% heavy oil
Primary Recovery
Waterflooding
10-30% light oil

5% heavy oil
Steamflooding
50-60% (California heavy oil)

10-40% (California heavy oil)
30% (Cold Lake heavy oil)
50% ? (Athabasca bitumen)
Cyclic Steaming
SAGD
SMFA-ST 20071128
OIL RESERVES
OIL RESOURCES
LIGHT OIL
HEAVY OIL & TAR
(BILLION BARRELS)
(BILLION BARRELS)
World
U.S.A.
Canada
Venezuela
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Oman
1212
22
180
73
99
259
6
World
5000
U.S.A.
53
Canada
1670
Venezuela
2000
Kuwait
?
Saudi Arabia
?
Oman
5
Recovery Factor 33%
Recovery Factor 10%
ar
e
y
e
n
o
in
ls
e
r
r
a
b
n
o
1 billi
SMFA-ST 20071128World consumes 3
GAS RESERVES
Russia
Iran
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
U.S.A.
Venezuela
Canada
1680 trillion cubic feet

812
508
224
183
148
60
One trillion = 1012
ne year
o
in
ft
u
c
n
o
li
il
tr
0
6
World consumes
SMFA-ST 20071128
Present world energy consumption is over

200 million oil equivalent barrels per day.
OTHER ENERGY RESOURCES
Coal
Becoming increasingly important
Oil shale Little chance of commercial viability
Nuclear Small, will increase
Wind
Very small, will increase
Solar
Very small, will increase
Biomass Small, may increase
Hydroelectric More or less maximum now
Geothermal Small, limited
es
im
t
3
>
e
b
ll
i
w
n
o
umpti
s
n
o
c
y
g
r
e
n
e
,
0
?
Other
6
m
o
r
f
In 20
e
m
o
c
t
i
l
il
ew
SMFA-ST 20071128
h er
w
t
n
e
s
e
r
p
e
th
that of
10
UNCONVENTIONAL
HYDROCARBON RESOURCES
ls
e
r
r
a
b
n
o
i
trill
0
1
t
u
o
b
A
Heavy oil
U.S.A.
Venezuela
Canada Other countries
Venezuela
U.S.A.
Tar Sands
Canada
Oil Shale
U.S.A.
Other countries
Coal
U.S.A.
SMFA-ST 20071128
Canada
Other countries
11
COST OF PRODUCING ONE

BARREL OF OIL
California: heavy oil ($60/Bbl)
Canada: Cold Lake heavy oil ($36/Bbl)
Canada: SAGD ($36/Bbl)
Canada: Surface Mined Oil Sd
North Sea: light oil
Venezuela: heavy oil
$10
Middle East: light oil
$2
Shale oil (Colorado oil shale) $80+
Oil from coal
$80+
SMFA-ST 20071128
$20
$20
$30 (?)
$30
$30-40
re
a
s
t
s
o
c
l
Al
g
n
i
s
a
incre il price
o
h
t
i
w
12
DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLD

LAKE PROJECT
Slow process, requiring experimentation and careful engineering.
SMFA-ST 20071128
13
GENERAL DESIGN OF EOR

PROJECTS
TOTAL TIME COULD APPROACH 20 YEARS
1. Site selection
2. Geology
3. Process selection
4. Lab testing and physical
models
5. Numerical simulation
6. Pattern size and type
7. Pilot design/operation
SMFA-ST 20071128
8. Observation/sampling wells
9. Post-project coring
10. Pilot evaluation
11. Prototype design
12. Operation
13. Decision for commercial
project
14
EOR CLASSIFICATION
EW
F
Y
R
E
V
RK
O
W
EOR METHODS
Non-Thermal
Thermal
Steam
Hot Water
CSS
Steam
flood
Frac.
Non-Frac.
In Situ
SAGD
Conduction
Forward Reverse
Heating
VAPEX
Dry
VAPEX +
Steam
Wet
SAGP
SMFA-ST 20071128
With
Additives
Electrical
High Press.
Air Injection
Miscible
Chemical
Gas
Drives
Other
Slug
Process
Polymer
CO2
MEOR
Enriched
Gas Drive
Surfactant
Flue
Gas
FOAM
Alkaline
Inert
Gas
Vaporizing Gas
Drive
N2
Emulsion
THAI
CO2
miscible
Micellar
CAPRI
Alcohol
ASP
15
TARGET OF EOR
(Assuming an Soi of 85% PV)
Light Oil
Heavy Oil
Initial fluid in place

EOR Target
EOR Target
Water
Water
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary 25% OOIP

Secondary 30%
Remaining 45%
Primary
Primary 5% OOIP
Secondary 5%
Remaining 90%
Tar Sand
EOR Target
Water
Primary 0% OOIP
Secondary 0%
Remaining 100%
SMFA-ST 20071128
16
MISCIBLE AND IMMISCIBLE

GAS INJECTION
SMFA-ST 20071128
July 2004
17
Gas Injection for pressure maintenance the oldest recovery method

Gases as displacing fluids
Natural Gas
Flue Gas
Air, Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
Miscible or immiscible displacement

SMFA-ST 20071128
18
MISCIBLE & IMMISCIBLE

FLUIDS
Mainly Three Types of Systems:

Gas Only Systems
Miscible in All Proportions
Gas-Liquid Systems
Solubility a Function of:
Pressure, Temperature
Liquid-Liquid Systems
Miscible Fluids
Immiscible Fluids
SMFA-ST 20071128
nd ies
a
ty mpl
i
l
i
b
I
u
y
l
t
So cibili
Mis mical
Che ilarity
Sim
19
GAS INJECTION FOR OIL

RECOVERY
HISTORY
In use since 1950s
Natural Gas, Flue Gas, Air, N2, CO2 were
commonly used
Initially as Secondary Recovery Process
Immiscible Displacement
Left high residual oil saturation: 40-60% OOIP
Miscible Displacement
Large density difference between displacing and
displaced fluids
Low volumetric sweep
SMFA-ST 20071128
20
GAS INJECTION: HISTORY
Contd
Search for more efficient miscible fluids
Alcohol Flooding
Large volumes of alcohols required
Uneconomic due to high cost of alcohols
Surfactant Based Processes

Micellar Flooding
Proven effective in recovering residual oil
Can give good volumetric sweep
Chemical costs and operational expenses are
prohibitive
SMFA-ST 20071128
21

Contd
Solvent Injection recovered more oil after

primary production
Hydrocarbon solvents include:
Natural gas, LPG, Propane
Miscible with certain type of crude oils
Can become miscible under certain conditions
CO2 and Flue Gas were also used

SMFA-ST 20071128
22

Contd
Mainly two types:
Single Contact Miscible (SCM) Process
Also known as First Contact Miscible (FCM)

Solvent and reservoir oil are directly miscible
Multiple Contact Miscible Process MCM
Solvent and reservoir oil become miscible

after continued contact
Two variations
Also
know
a
s
Vaporizing Gas Drive
D y na n
Misc mic
Condensing Gas Drive
ibl
e
Proc
e sse
s
SMFA-ST 20071128
23

Contd
Large number of projects in Canada and the

U.S.A.
Low viscosity (<6 cp), high gravity (30-45
API) oils responded favorably
Mostly horizontal, and some vertical floods
Higher recovery in gravity stabilized floods
Successful in secondary and tertiary modes

SMFA-ST 20071128
24

Contd
High energy consumption and declining oil

production prompts search for economic
alternatives to hydrocarbon solvents
Lab studies and field projects evaluate CO2
injection for enhanced oil recovery
CO2 Phase behavior and other characteristics
favorable for miscible and immiscible processes
CO2 can recover light and heavy oils under
specialized conditions
Process viability depends on availability of CO2
and cost
SMFA-ST 20071128
25
CURRENT STATUS:
EOR BY GAS INJECTION
Process Type
Hydrocarbon
Miscible/Immiscible
CO 2 Miscible
CO 2 Immiscible
N 2 Miscible
N 2 Immiscible
Total
SMFA-ST 20071128
No. of
Projects
40
72
7
1
2
122
Total Prod., B/d

338,630
212,975
6,415
10,700
4,000
572,720
26
EOR PRODUCTION BY GAS

INJECTION WORLDWIDE
N2
3%
CO2
38%
Total Production
572,090 B/D
SMFA-ST 20071128
HC
59%
27
GAS INJECTION PROJECTS AND

PRODUCTION WOLDWIDE
400,000
(40)
338,630
Oil Production, B/D
350,000
(No. of Proje cts in bracke ts)
300,000
(72)
250,000
212,341
Total Production
over 572,090 B/D
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
(7)
(1)
6,419
10,700
(2)
4,000
SMFA-ST 20071128
ci
b
le
ci
bl
e
ci
bl
e
is
Im
m
itr
og
en
N
it r
og
en
is
m
Im
C
2
C
O
M
is
is
ci
b
le
/Im
m
is
c.
M
is
ci
bl
e
28
PRODUCING HYDROCARBON
MISCIBLE PROJECTS AND
PRODUCTION
Country
USA
Canada
Venezuela
Abu Dhabi
Libya
Total
SMFA-ST 20071128
No. of Projects
6
29
3
1
1
40
Total Prod., B/d

97,300
35,030
166,000
300
40,000
338,630
29
EOR PRODUCTION BY
HYDROCARBON MISCIBLE
PROJECTS
Venezuela
Abu Dhabi
Libya
Canada
USA
Total Production
338,630 B/D
SMFA-ST 20071128
30
HYDROCARBON MISCIBLE PROJECTS

AND PRODUCTION WORLDWIDE
Total Production
338,630 B/D
(No. of Projects in brackets)

(3)
180,000
166,000
Oil Production, B/D
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
(8)
97,300
80,000
60,000
(29)
40,000
35,030
(1)
40,000
(1)
300
20,000
0
USA
SMFA-ST 20071128
Canada
Venezuela Abu Dhabi
Libya
31
PRODUCING AND PLANNED

HYDROCARBON MISCIBLE
PROJECTS WORLDWIDE
Country
USA
Canada
Venezuela
Abu Dhabi
Libya
Total
SMFA-ST 20071128
No. of Projects
9
29
8
1
1
47
32
C
ar
it
Pr o C
u e
C dho ntr
ar e a
ito B l
O ay
es
I
R K nti Fu te
ai u sa rr
nb pa r ia
ow ru 10 l
k 3
K R D
So Ra
R
i
i
ut nb S B ver
h o w P
Pa w an o
ss KR H ol
R Ra B F ills
ai in lo P
nb b ck o
ow ow 8 ol
9
K Z -1
G R Po
oo A o
se Po l
R o
W B ive l
R
ra r
ai
i
z
nb
a s
ow R rd sey
a i La
S. nb k
K ow e
R
Ei
E -2
le
R en A Poo
u
a
Pe inb Wa ror l
ow tf a
m
o
Pe b
m ina So rd
bi L ut
na P h
Pe R M o o
m a P l
Fe bin inb oo
o l
n
P n a w
R em -B G P -1
a
ig o
R inb bin V o
R ain ow a all l
P e
ai b
nb o KR P y
ow w K E oo
l
Pe S. R O Po
m KE P ol
R bi G oo
ai n
l
Pe nb a K Po
m ow Po ol
Pe b i T o
m na Po l
b O o
So R A ina P l
l
a
ut i B Q oo
h nb u K P l
R Pa ow h oo
R ain ss F oos l
ai b B F h
nb ow lo P
o
R ow K ck ol
ai K R 89
n
R b R G -2
ai ow E P
nb
E o
ow KR E P ol
K H P ool
R o
D o
Po l
ol
Enhanced Production, B/D
PRODUCING HYDROCARBON
MISCIBLE PROJECTS
WORLDWIDE
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
SMFA-ST 20071128
No. Projects - 40
Total Production - 338,630 B/D
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Projects
33
400,000
70
350,000
60
300,000
50
250,000
40
200,000
30
150,000
20
100,000
10
50,000
0
0
1994
SMFA-ST 20071128
Number of Projects
HISTORY - HYDROCARBON MISCIBLE

PROJECTS AND PRODUCTION
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
34
PRODUCING CO2 MISCIBLE

AND IMMISCIBLE PROJECTS
LE
B
I
C
S
MI
IS
M
IM
LE
B
CI
SMFA-ST 20071128
Country
USA
Canada
Total
Country
USA
Turkey
Trinidad
Total
No. of Projects
70
2
72
No. of Projects
1
1
5
7
Total Prod., B/d

205,775
7,200
212,975
Total Prod., B/d

106
6000
313
6,419
35
EOR PRODUCTION BY CO2

PROJECTS
Canada
3%
Total Production
218,760 B/D
SMFA-ST 20071128
Turkey
3%
Trinidad
0.2%
USA
94%
36
CO2 MISCIBLE/IMMISCIBLE
PROJECTS AND
PRODUCTION
Canada 7,200
Oil Production, B/D
200,000
150,000
100,000
USA
205,141
Plus
Trinidad 313
USA - 102
50,000
Turkey
6,000
0
SMFA-ST 20071128
Miscible
Immiscible
37
0
Wasson Denver
SACROC
Seminol Main
Rangely webber
Salt Creek
Means
Wasson ODC
Anton Irish
Weyburn
Postle
Bati Raman
Cogdell
Vacuum(Phillips)
Slaughter
South Cowden
Slaughter Estate
Wasson Willard
Slaughter2
Cedar Lake
Little Creek
Greater Anneth
Slaughter Central
Vacuum(ChevTex)
Dollarhide
Mabee
Bennet Ranch
Northeast Purdy
North Hobbs
East Ford
Seminol ROZ
Slaughter Frazier
Wasson
Sho-Vel-Tum
Reinecke
Lost Soldier1
South Welch
Lost Soldier2
T-Star
Sharon Ridge
Wertz1
North Cross
Adair San Andres
North Dollarhide
Lost Soldier3
Wasson Cornel
Joffre (Canada)
Bradley
Slaughter1
Alex Slaughter
Greater Anneth
Cordona Lake
GMK South
Hanford
Camrick
Wertz2
Slaughter H T
El-Mar
South Cowden
Mid-Cross
North Cowden
Dollarhide
Twofreds
EOR 34 Cyclic
Hansford
Dover 36
West Malibu
Sho-Vel-Tum
East Penn well
Area 2124
Dover 33
West Welch
Area 202
Oropouche
Hanford East
Sprayberry
Hall-Gurney
Area 2121
Enhanced Oil Production, B\D
PRODUCING CO2 MISCIBLE

PROJECTS WORLDWIDE
Producing CO2 Miscible/Immiscible Projects - Worldwide
30,000
25,000
20,000
No. of Projects - 79
Total Production - 218,756 bbl
15,000
10,000
5,000
Projects
SMFA-ST 20071128
38
250,000
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1994
SMFA-ST 20071128
1996
1998
2000
2002
No. of Projects
HISTORY OF CO2 MISCIBLE

2004
39
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1994
SMFA-ST 20071128
1996
1998
2000
2002
No. of Projects
Enhanced Producton, B/D
HISTORY OF CO2 IMMISCIBLE

2004
40
PRODUCING N2 MISCIBLE
AND IMMISCIBLE PROJECTS
2 Projects
in the USA
N2 Miscible
27%
1 Project
in the USA
SMFA-ST 20071128
N2
Immiscible
73%
Total Production
14,700 B/D
41
PRODUCING AND PLANNED

N2 PROJECTS WORLDWIDE
Country
USA
Canada
Mexico
Venezuela
SMFA-ST 20071128
No. of Projects
3
1
1
1
Total Prod., B/d

14,700
0
0
0
42
MISCIBLE VS. IMMISCIBLE

DISPLACEMENT
Immiscible fluids segregate upon mixing
Interface present
Definite interfacial tension
Immiscible displacement
Miscible fluids remain single phase upon

mixing in any proportion
Interface absent
Zero interfacial tension
Miscible displacement possible
SMFA-ST 20071128
43
MISCIBLE VS.IMMISCIBLE
DISPLACEMENT Contd
r
el. p
e
fluid rmeabi
li
s
IFT, aturatio ty,
p
ns,
Displacement efficiency <1
stru ore
ctur
e,
wett
a
High residual oil saturation
cont bility are
rollin
Early breakthrough of displacing fluid g facto
rs
Inde
p
relat endent
of
iv
perm e
eabi
w
e
Displacement efficiency can 1 c ttabilit lity and
y
hara
c
teris
Lower residual oil saturation
tics
Miscible displacement
Delayed breakthrough of displacing fluid

SMFA-ST 20071128
44
MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT
Contd
Mixing zone develops between

displacing and resident fluids
Piston-like displacement possible
Early production of displacing fluid
indicates:
SMFA-ST 20071128
Unfavorable viscosity ratio
Large density difference
High permeability channels
45
Contd
Single Contact Miscible Process (SCM)

Solvent and oil miscible upon contact
e.g. LPG, Propane
Multiple Contact Miscible Process (MCM)

Solvency developed by mass transfer
Requires a number of contacts
Dependent upon fluid compositions, pressure and
temperature
e.g. natural gas, CO2, N2, flue gas
SMFA-ST 20071128
46
CLASSIFICATION OF
MISCIBLE PROCESSES
SMFA-ST 20071128
47
FACTORS AFFECTING
The major factors are:
Interfacial tension
Capillary Number
Mobility Ratio
Viscous Instabilities
Gravity Tonguing/Override
Sweep Efficiency
Displacement Efficiency
SMFA-ST 20071128
48
INTERFACIAL/SURFACE
TENSION, IFT
Interface signals immiscibility
Imbalance of molecular attraction at the
surface or interface
Membrane-like surface forms
IFT is a function of molecular masses

and the distance between them a
le
b
i
c
al
is
i
c
m
a
im nterf
r
o
I
F
:
s
d
i
liqu ion
ns
e
T
SMFA-ST 20071128
d
n
a
d
id
n
u
a
q
li
id
For or liqu face
r
gas lid: Su
a so ion
s
T en
49
IFT, Contd
Creation of surface requires work
Work required to create interface/surface
Definition:
Force per unit length of the surface or
interface
Units: dynes/cm or mN/m
1 dyne/cm = 1 mN/m
SMFA-ST 20071128
50
IFT Contd
IFT is a definite and constant
characteristic of fluids
IFT decrease as the chemical similarity
between fluids increase
Interfacial tension between fluids fall
between the surface tension of the fluids
SMFA-ST 20071128
51
SURFACE TENSION OF
PARAFFIN HYDROCARBONS
(After Green and Willhite,

Enhanced Oil Recovery,
Recovery, Vol.
6, SPE, Richardson, TX,
1998)
SMFA-ST 20071128
52
IFT BETWEEN WATER AND

CRUDE OILS
de
u
r
f c e nd s
o
IFT dep
s
oil oil
ion
t
i
on po s
m
co
SMFA-ST 20071128
(After Green and Willhite,

Enhanced Oil Recovery,
Recovery, Vol. 6,
SPE, Richardson, TX, 1998)
53
CAPILLARY NUMBER, Nc
Definition:
Ratio of viscous to capillary forces
Nc =
V = darcy velocity, m/s

m= displacing fluid
viscosity, Pa.s
= IFT, N/m
Determines residual oil left after an immiscible

displacement
A minimum value required to mobilize residual oil
Large increase in Nc is needed after a waterflood
Becomes infinite if IFT=0
SMFA-ST 20071128
54
CAPILLARY NUMBER Contd
SMFA-ST 20071128
55
MOBILITY RATIO, M
Definition:
Ratio of mobility of displacing fluid to
mobility of displaced fluid
keff
ing
ing
=
M=
ed keff
ed
= mobility
k = effective permeability,
m2eff
= viscosity, Pa.s
kr = relative permeability
SMFA-ST 20071128
krw o
M=
kro w
56
EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO ON

DISPLACEMENT EFFICIENCY
In a miscible displacement,
o
M =
s
mo= viscosity of oil

ms = viscosity of solvent
SMFA-ST 20071128
57
EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO ON

SWEEP EFFICIENCY
M>>1 results in low
volumetric sweep
Low oil recovery
after solvent
breakthrough
In miscible floods,
breakthrough
recovery governed
by o
SMFA-ST 20071128
(After Stalkup,
Stalkup, Jr., F.I
Miscible Displacement,
SPE, Richardson, TX, 8,
1992)
1992)
58
VISCOUS INSTABILITIES
Excessive fluid mixing due to:
Unfavorable mobility ratio
Large difference in fluid densities
Permeability variations
Unstable displacement
Early breakthrough of solvent
Low sweep efficiency
Low oil recovery
SMFA-ST 20071128
59
VISCOUS INSTABILITIES
Contd
Viscous fingers increase in size and number

with time
Influenced by dispersion
Length proportional to flow
t rate
Width proportional to
Merging and overlapping may impart better

stability
SMFA-ST 20071128
60
GRAVITY TONGUING/OVERRIDE
Displacing fluid overrides
the oil
Large density difference
Can lead to viscous
instabilities if M>>1
Viscous to gravity ratio
control the vertical sweep
Viscous instabilities can

completely dominate
displacement
SMFA-ST 20071128
(After Stalkup,
Stalkup, Jr., F.I Miscible Displacement,
SPE, Richardson, TX, 8, 1992)
1992)
61
GRAVITY TONGUING/OVERRIDE
Contd
Particularly problematic in horizontal
reservoirs
Gravity effects can stabilize displacement
front in vertical reservoirs
Must have good vertical permeability
Preferably thick pay zone
Longitudinal dispersion prominent than transverse
dispersion
Production rate controlled not to exceed the

critical velocity
SMFA-ST 20071128
62
AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY, EA

Definition:
Ev =
Area swept by the displacing fluid

total reservoir area
Controlling Factors are:
Permeability heterogeneities
Injection-production well pattern geometry
Mobility Ratio
Gravity and Viscous forces
SMFA-ST 20071128
63
VERTICAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY

Definition:
Pore space swept by the displacing fluid
Ev =
Pore space in the layers behind the
leading edge of the displacing front
Major Controlling Factors:

Gravity Segregation
Large density differences
Very low injection rates
Mobility Ratio
Gravity override suppressed when M <<1
Vertical to horizontal permeability variation

Lighter fluid channels to high permeability regions
SMFA-ST 20071128
64
DISPLACEMENT EFFICIENCY
Complete displacement of all of the oil
contacted:
Displacement Efficiency = 1
Portion of oil contacted is left undisplaced:

Displacement Efficiency <1
Oil trapping due high mobile water saturation

Dead-end pore volumes
Large permeability variation
Phase behavior characteristics

Miscible or Immiscible phases
SMFA-ST 20071128
65
MECHANISMS
Fluids mix in porous media due to
Diffusion
Molecular level
Due to random thermal motion of molecules
Dispersion
Microscopic Convective Dispersion
Due to tortuous flow path in the porous medium
Macroscopic Convective Dispersion
Reservoir heterogeneities
Fluctuations in flow rates
SMFA-ST 20071128
66
MOLECULAR DIFFUSION
Ficks Diffusion Equation:G = the quantity of species
i
dGi
dCi
= Doi A
dt
dx
of s
t
r
po cros
s
n
a
a
r
t
e
t
i
e
c
e
N
p
s
h
eac ne
a
a pl
SMFA-ST 20071128
diffusing across a
plane, moles
t = time, s
Doi = the molecular
diffusion coefficient
of the specie, m2/s
A = area of cross section of
diffusion, m2
Ci = concentration of the
specie, moles/m3
x = distance, m
67
MOLECULAR DIFFUSION
Contd
Diffusion in porous media differs from

diffusion across a uniform plane
Correlation between Effective Diffusion,
D and Formation Electrical Resistivity, F
D
1
Do
=
,
=
D
Do F
F
Ro
F=
Rw
SMFA-ST 20071128
Ro = Resistivity of the rock, 100 % saturated

with salt
solution, ohm-m
Rw = Resistivity of the salt solution, ohm-m
68
MICROSCOPIC
CONVECTIVE DISPERSION
Mixing at pore level in excess of that from
molecular diffusion: Dispersion
Caused by convection in the tortuous flow paths
Concentration gradient due to fluid flow
A mixing zone/transition zone develops
Initially rapid, but stabilizes in length with time
Mainly two types:

Longitudinal Dispersion, KL
Transverse Dispersion, KT
SMFA-ST 20071128
69
LONGITUDINAL
DISPERSION, KL
Definition:
Dispersion in the direction of gross fluid flow

Miscible Displacement Concentratin Profile
(Fluid A displacing Fluid B)
% fluid A in the effluent
100
90
Fluid A : 1% (w/v) NaCl in water
80
Fluid B : 5% (w/v) NaCl in water
70
60
50
40
30
20
Transition
Zone
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Cumulative Volume Injected, ml
SMFA-ST 20071128
70
TRANSITION/MIXING ZONE
C o n c e n tra tio n P ro file o f D is p la c in g F lu id
(F lu id A d is p la c in g F lu id B )
% Displacing Fluid in the Effluent
100
90
F lu id A : 5 % (w /v ) N a C l in w a te r
80
F lu id B : 2 % (w /v ) N a C l in w a te r
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
SMFA-ST 20071128
Mixing
Zone
Displacing
fluid
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
breakthrough
C u m u la tiv e V o lu m e In je c te d , m l
400
450
500
71
TRANSVERSE DISPERSION, KT
Dispersion transverse to the direction of
gross fluid flow
KT is ~ 1/10 of KL
re n the
o
m n t i ab
s
i
l
a
K T nific n in
sig d tha
l
fie dels
mo
(After Stalkup,
Stalkup, Jr., F.I Miscible Displacement, SPE, Richardson, TX, 8, 1992)
1992)
SMFA-ST 20071128
72
DISPERSION COEFFICIENT
Longitudinal Dispersion Coefficient,
KL K L 1
v d p
v = pore velocity, m/s,
Do
+ 0.5
Do
= inhomogeneity
factor, dp= particle

diameter, cm
KL is proportional to velocity
At low velocities both Do and KL are

prominent
At moderate velocities KL dominates re lab
o
in
m
t
s
n
i
Mixing theory does not validate K L nifica at high
sig dels
s
at very high velocities
mo citie
SMFA-ST 20071128
o
vel
73
DISPERSION COEFFICIENT
Contd
Transverse Dispersion Coefficient, KT

v d p
KT
1
=
+ 0.0157
Do F
Do
en
p
d am
to
s
d
ld
ten cous at fie
K T vis
es
i
t
t
i
u
l
o
bi
a
t
ins s
e
r at
KT is more significant in field than in lab

model
At low velocities molecular diffusion dominates

transverse dispersion
Convective dispersion is more prominent
mechanism of transverse dispersion at higher
velocities
SMFA-ST 20071128
74
EXPERIMENTAL
DETERMINATION OF KL
Two fluids, A and B, of similar density and viscosity

Linear core saturated with fluid B
Fluid A displacing fluid B at a constant rate
Effluents collected at regular intervals
Analyzed for concentration of fluid A in the mixture
of A and B
Parameter U is calculated for each effluent
1 L (U90 U10 )
KL =
Vpt p 3.625
SMFA-ST 20071128
V V
U = p
Vp= core pore volume,

cm3 tp = time to inject 1
PV , s L= core length,
cm
75
EXPERIMENTAL
DETERMINATION OF KL Contd
De te rmination of parame te r U
U=
(1% (w/v) NaCl displacing 5% (w/v) NaCl)
Vp v
v
Vp = pore volume, v= cum. vol. injeceted
10
9
U10 = 7.6
8
7
6
5
4
3
U90 = 3.45
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Conce ntration of Dis placing Fluid in the Efflue nt
Note: U vs. Conc. must be plotted on arithmetic probability paper

SMFA-ST 20071128
76
EXPERIMENTAL
VERIFICATION OF KL
Do
KL =
+v
F
vd p
KL
1
=
+ c
Do F
Do
ns for
o
i
t
ua uate
q
E
eq diate
d
a
in rme
s
inte citie
o
vel
(After Raimondi and Gardner, Paper 43, AIChEAIChE-SPE, Symp.

Symp. San Francisco, Dec. 559, 195931
SMFA-ST 20071128
77
MACROSCOPIC CONVECTIVE
DISPERSION
Mixing due to heterogeneities in porous medium
Channeling due to porosity and permeability variations
Fluctuations in flow velocities
Amplified by large differences in fluid densities

and viscosities
Difficult to quantify through experiments
Field level heterogeneities difficult to scale
SMFA-ST 20071128
78
FACTORS AFFECTING
DISPERSION COEFF.
Dispersion in porous media depends on:
Mobility Ratio
M>>1 promotes higher level of dispersion
Density Differenc
Gravity stabilized floods suppress dispersion
Particle Shape and Diameter

Higher dispersion with wider size distribution
Angularity increases dispersion
More significant in cores than in field
Fluid saturations
Higher dispersion with higher wetting phase saturation
SMFA-ST 20071128
79
PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL
EQUATIONS
Linear Flow Single phase Single

component: d 2C v dC dC
ow
KL
dx
dx
dt
l
1- D f
X = distance, m; v = velocity, m/s; = porosity, fraction; t =

time, s; C = concentration of displacing fluid at time t and
at distance x, moles/m3; vp = pore velocity, m/s
For constant velocity in x-direction, and

dispersion in x, y, z directions:
low
f
D
3
d 2C d 2C
d 2C
dC dC
K L 2 + KT 2 + 2 v p
=
dx
dz
dx
dt
dy
SMFA-ST 20071128
80
CONCENTRATION OF
DISPLACING FLIUD
Concentration profile created by KL in a 1-D flow:
C x ,t
1
= 1 erf
2
x v pt
2 K t
L
Early breakthrough of displacing

is high
Cx,0 = 0
Cx = ,t = 1
Initial
condition
Boundary
Cx = ,t = 0 condition
s
fluid when dispersion
Greater spread in profile means higher dispersion

C at the outlet at one PV injected = of the injected
concentration
SMFA-ST 20071128
81
CONCENTRATION OF
DISPLACING FLIUD contd
Concentration Profile of Displacing Fluid
(5% (w/v) NaCl displacing 2% (w/v) NaCl)
% Displacing Fluid in the Effluent
100
a
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
b
10
Pore Volume
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Cumulative Volume Injected, ml
SMFA-ST 20071128
82
PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL
EQUATIONS
Radial Flow:
C Q C r D 2 r 2C
+
= + 2 2
t r r Q Q t
Q=
q
2 h
r = distance from the well, m; t = time since injection

started; Q = injection rate per unit thickness; h =
formation thickness, m
Concentration of displacing fluid:

4 3 D 4
f =
r + r
3
Q
0.5r 2 Qt
1
Cr ,t = 1 erf
2
f
= mixing coefficient
SMFA-ST 20071128
83
MISCIBLE SLUG PROCESS

Linear Flow:
Concentration of displacing fluid at any
distance x and time t :
vt x 1
v ( t t1 ) x
1
Cx ,t = erf
2 K t
2
L
erf
2
2 K Lt
t1 = duration
of slug
injection, s
Cmax of slug material at distance x:

Cmax
S v
= erf
2 K x
L
ic e
t
o
N
Cmax
1
x
S = length of undiluted slug, m ; v = pore

velocity, m/s
SMFA-ST 20071128
84
MISCIBLE SLUG PROCESS

Radial Flow:
contd
Concentration of the slug material at any

distance, r, along the radius and time, t:
r2
Qt
1
2
Cr ,t = erf
2
f
1
erf
2
r2
Q ( t t1 )
2
f =
4 3 D 4
r + r
3
Q
Cmax of slug material at a given distance:

Cmax
SMFA-ST 20071128
R2
= erf
4
f
R=
qt1
h
85
MIXING/TRANSITION ZONE
The length of the zone within which the
displacing fluid concentration is between 1090% of the injected concentration
r
a
e
lin eme
r
Fo plac
dis
nt: x
Mixing zone length :

KL x
x = 3.625
v
If x is fraction of PV:
x
x
x
SMFA-ST 20071128
x = distance traveled, m
86
PHASE BEHAVIOR OF HC
SYSTEMS
A phase is a physically distinct portion of matter having
uniform physical and chemical properties
Homogeneous System
Heterogeneous System
Influenced by p, T and composition of the system

Hydrocarbon Systems can be:
Single component
Two-component
Multi-component
Phase behavior is described by:

Pressure-Temperature diagram
Pressure-Volume diagram
Pressure-Composition diagram
SMFA-ST 20071128
d
ms
n
a
a
r
g
ry
ia
a
d
n
r
y
Te ernar
to
d
t
e
a
Qu lso us ltia
are ribe mu ystems
s
c
des onent
p
com
87
PHASE BEHAVIOR SINGLE

COMPONENT SYSTEM
Pressure and Temperature determine the
phase behavior
At constant T:
The type and number of phases present depend
on the pressure
At vapor pressure, both liquid and vapor co-exist
Above vapor pressure, only liquid exists
Below vapor pressure, only vapor exists
SMFA-ST 20071128
The relative amounts of vapor and

liquid will depend on the volume of
the system
88
SINGLE COMPONET: p-T

Fl
DIAGRAM
S uid
tat
e
s
n
e
r
o
u
b
P
ar
c
o
e
r
h y d v e i n th l
a
a
beh gener
e
sam er
n
man
SMFA-ST 20071128
89
TWO-COMPONET SYSTEM:
p-T DIAGRAM
Vapour can exist above critical pressure
Liquid can exist above critical temperature
Cricondentherm: Highest
temp. at which liquid can
exist
Crocondenbar: Highest
pressure at which vapor
can exist
SMFA-ST 20071128
90
MULTI-COMPONENT SYSTEM:
p-V DIAGRAM
Similar to two-component systems

Dew point not well defined
Crude oils behave similarly
Bubble point pressure represents saturation
pressure
Dew point is practically

unattainable for crude
oils
SMFA-ST 20071128
91
MULTI-COMPONENT SYSTEM:
p-T DIAGRAM
Represents phase behavior of reservoir fluid
systems
Favorable phase
behavior leads to
miscibility between
reservoir oil and
injected gas
SMFA-ST 20071128
92
GIBBS PHASE RULE

Definition:
F =CP+2
F = degrees of
freedom
C = number of
components
P = the number of
phases
Crude oils are too complex for complete

description of phase behavior by Gibbs
phase rule
SMFA-ST 20071128
93
TERNARY DIAGRAMS
SMFA-ST 20071128
94
ALCOHOL-OIL-WATER SYSTEM
Alcohol
Constant Temperature
Constant Pressure
single phase
region
binodal curve
plait point
R1
Q1
P1
Water
SMFA-ST 20071128
se
ha
p
o n
tw gio
e
r
tie lines P
S
R2
Q2
P2
Oil
95
EFFECT OF PRESSURE & TEMPERATURE

ON PHASE BEHAVIOUR
After McCain Jr., W.D.:
Properties of Petroleum
Reservoir Fluids, PenWell
Publishing Co., Tulsa, O.K.,
1973.
Miscibility increases
with increase in
pressure
SMFA-ST 20071128
Location, shape and size of 2phase envelope and tie-lines

change with pressure and
temperature
Two phase region enlarges
with increase in
temperature
96
EFFECT OF ADDITIVES ON
PHASE BEHAVIOUR
CO2 and H2S enhance
miscibility
CH4, N2 and O2
increase miscibility
pressure
SMFA-ST 20071128
97
PROPERTIES OF MISCIBLE
FLUIDS
Properties of interest are:
Density
Viscosity
Diffusion coefficient
Interfacial/Surface tension
Solubility in hydrocarbon
Solubility in aqueous phase
SMFA-ST 20071128
98
DENSITY OF PURE GASES

From real gas equation:
pM
=
ZRT
lb/ft3 or kg/m3
P = pressure, psi (Pa)

M = molecular weight of gas
lb/lb-mole, (kg/kg-mole)
Z = compressibility factor
R = gas constant, 10.73
(8314)
3:
m
/
g
3 to k
b/ft
l
t
r
46
e
8
v
1
n
0
o
6.
1
To c
h
wit
y
l
tip
l
u
M
T = temperature, R (K)
SMFA-ST 20071128
99
VISCOSITY
A measure of the resistance to flow exerted
by fluids
Function of molecular size and complexity
Influenced by pressure and temperature
Increases with increase in pressure
Decreases with increase in temperature
Units: cp or Pa.s
SMFA-ST 20071128
100
RESERVOIR OIL VISCOSITY

Direct function of solution gas
Behaves differently at pressures above and below
bubble point pressure
In miscible displacement:
se
a
e
r
c
t in
n
a
c
i
f
Signi iscosity
v
in oil p
b
below
displaced fluid
M=
displacing fluid
M is
SMFA-ST 20071128
>1
>
n
ofte
101
VISCOSITY OF HC LIQUIDS AT 1ATM
After Brown et al.: Natural Gasoline and the Volatile Hydrocarbons, Natural Gasoline Association, Tulsa, O.K.,
SMFA-ST 20071128
1948
102
VISCOSITY OF GASES
Pressure, Temperature effects:
Propane gas
w es,
o
l
At ssur y
T
t
e
i
s
r
p cos s a
e
vis reas s
e
inc reas
inc
Liquid propane
After Katz, D.L.. Handbook of

Natural Gas, McGraw Hill
Book Co. NY, 1959.
SMFA-ST 20071128
103
PROCESSES
First Contact Miscible Process
(FCM, SCM)
Reservoir oil and injected fluid miscible upon contact
Multiple Contact Miscible Process

(MCM)
Miscibility achieved after several contacts
Continuous Injection
Slug Process
Solvents: Ethane, Propane, Butane, LPG
Drive Fluids: Methane, Natural gas, Nitrogen
SMFA-ST 20071128
104
FIRST CONTACT MISCIBLE

PROCESS (FCM/SCM)
Reservoir oil and solvent are directly miscible
~1100-1300 psi
~100-200 psi
LPG, Slug Process

Slug Size: 4-5% HCPV
Drive Gas: 20-40% HCPV methane or N2
SMFA-ST 20071128
105
PHASE BEHAVIOR - SCM

Data from PVT Experiments
Impurities
alter
miscibility
pressure
SMFA-ST 20071128
Pressure required for

drive gas-solvent slug
miscibility is the
controlling pressure
Higher pressures
give greater
flexibility in
injected gas
composition
106
OTHER FACTORS - SCM

Reservoir Temp. below Tc of solvent :
Asphaltene precipitation
Ethane Hexane may cause precipitation from asphaltic
crude oils
Plugging near wellbore region
Laboratory tests to evaluate the extent of precipitation
Reservoir Temp. above Tc of solvent:

Miscibility possible at pressures above
cricondenbar
Depends on reservoir temperature and oil composition
also
SMFA-ST 20071128
107
SCM OTHER FACTORS Contd

Process Efficiency
Slug Size
Oil
SMFA-ST 20071128
Larger slug size gives higher recovery, but process

efficiency drops
Depends on :
V
P
HC
Oil viscosity
%
5
4 r
Permeability Stratification
he
t
s
ire m fo ver PV
u
o le
q
kv/kh
u
e
y
t
R nim ili dab
well spacing
mi scib floo
mi tire
Recovery: 60-80% OOIP
en
108
SCM - SCREENING CRITERIA

Oil viscosity - 2 cp, >5 cp too viscous
API Gravity - 35-45 API, <30 not suitable
Rock
- Sandstone, Carbonate
Depth
- Limited by miscibility pressure

1500 -2000 ft desirable
Oil Saturation - 25% PV

Mode
SMFA-ST 20071128
- Secondary, Tertiary
109
SCM OPERATIONAL CONCERNS

High cost and low availability of solvent
smaller slug size, can become immiscible
displacement
,
g
n
ri
u
High mobility Ratio
ct ty
a
fr bili
e
Low sweep efficiency
iv ea ng as
s
n rm tro
g sk
e
t
d
e
i
s
x
High density difference
E h p st, e an he r
hig ntra driv se t
Gravity override/underride
co ter crea
Hydrate formation
wa p in
ca tor
Valves, chokes and pump freeze-up
fac
Paraffin deposition
Asphalt precipitation
SMFA-ST 20071128
110
MULTIPLE CONTACT MISCIBLE

PROCESS (MCM)
Miscibility achieved through mass transfer over a
number of contacts
Mainly two types:
Condensing Gas Drive
Also known as Enriched Gas Drive
Vaporizing Gas Drive

Also known as Lean Gas Drive
Both processes require C2-C6 components; but

differ in the manner in which they are availed for
mass transfer
SMFA-ST 20071128
111
MCM - CONDENSING GAS DRIVE

Also known as Enriched Gas
Reservoir oil lacks C2-CDrive
6 components
Injection Gas: Inject C2-C6 components with C1,

N2 or flue gas (88% N2 + 12% CO2)
C2-C6 components condense into the oil and
develops miscibility
Miscibility pressure depends on:
Reservoir temperature
Oil composition
Injected gas composition
Slug process: 10-15% HCPV
ut
b
,
le
b
i
c lity
s
i
m cibi
m
i
is
y
l
l
m
a
i
Init elops
dev
N2, Flue gas, methane or water as drive fluid

SMFA-ST 20071128
112
MCM (CONDENSING): PHASE

BEHAVIOR
For Miscibility: The oil
must be to the left, and
the injected gas to the
right, of the limiting
tieline.
Rel. Perm
effects may
develop
High GOR
Possible
residual gas
saturation
Two phase flow
in transition
zone
SMFA-ST 20071128
113
PROCESS VARIABLES: MCM

(CONDENSING)
Enriched gas composition
Depends on reservoir pressure, temperature and oil
composition
Operating pressure
MMP: Pressure at which miscibility will be
achieved
Lower pressures require richer gas composition
Miscibility between enriched gas and
%
reservoir oil is the controlling factor
5-20 ment
~1500-3000 psi
SMFA-ST 20071128
e
Incr
al
ery
v
o
R ec
114
SCREENING CRITERIA:
MCM (CONDENSING)
Oil viscosity
Oil gravity
Depth
Oil saturation
5 cp
30 50 API
2,000 3,000 ft
25% PVve
cti
A
,
e
e
p
l
s
a
b
h
a
r
a
g
C
e
i
r
pe
er
s
c
H
o
d
a
i
n
i
d
in
n
ns
, G r an ast
o
i
s
t
Co ibility s
e
a as
r
te ontr
m
u
r
r
a
t
x
e
g
o
c
f
W
C
a
fle met
d
r
e
e
t
y
F tom ilit
a
ra reas
d
t
b
y
par
H
ec are ms
Bo mea
d
r
and ctivity roble
Pe risk
p
inje sible
the
pos
SMFA-ST 20071128
g
n
i
t
a
115
MCM: VAPORIZING GAS DRIVE

Limited to reservoirs with volatile oil
Lean gas, N2 or flue gas injected at high pressure
ut
b
,
r
P
e
Extracts C2-C6 fraction from the oil
M
p
M
hea her
c
Develops transition zone
N 2 e hig
ue
v
l
f
n
a
h
Miscibility achieved over time
sio with
o
r
r
Co lems
b
Miscibility pressure depends on
pro
s
reservoir temperature and oil composition ga
~3,000-3,500 psi or higher
Continuous injection of minimum 1HCPV

SMFA-ST 20071128
116
MCM (VAPORIZING): PHASE

BEHAVIOR
For Miscibility:Injected
gas must lie to the left,
and the reservoir oil to
the right of the limiting
tieline
Pressure must
be adjusted to
achieve this
configuration
c1
V
Lean Gas
G1
G2
G3
M1
G4
M2
M3
M4
L1 L2 L3 L4
Plait
Point
Oil
denuded of
C2-C6 left
as residual
saturation
Liquid
knock-out ,
Gas
fingering
possible
A
Limiting
Tie-line
SMFA-ST 20071128
C7+
Reservoir OIl
C2 - C6
117
MCM (VAPORIZING): OTHER

FACTORS
Does not have much flexibility in design variables
An alternative to water injection in tight formation
Lower overall mobility ratio
(Candidate reservoirs have low viscosity oils)
Produced gas can be recycled
Difficult to determine the

distance at which miscibility
is achieved in the reservoir
SMFA-ST 20071128
118
SCREENING CRITERIA: MCM

(VAPORIZING)
Oil gravity > 40 API

Oil viscosity
< 3 cp (<1 preferable)
C2-C6 content in the oil - relatively high
Oil saturation
> 25% PV
Rock
- Sandstone, Carbonate
Depth - Enough to contain the
pressure
required for miscibility
Minimum of 5,000 psi recommended
Oil must be undersaturated with respect to methane
SMFA-ST 20071128
119
DISCUSSION OF FIELD
PROJECTS
MITSUE GILWOOD SAND UNIT #1
HORIZONTAL MISCIBLE FLOOD
Two-stage miscible flood with WAG injection,
started in 1985
Successful
SMFA-ST 20071128
120
RESERVOIR LOCATION
Fr
- --
s
ga
ee
-- -- -A
r-ife
qu
-- -
--- --
Figure shows the miscible

flood area only.
- --
Located in northwest
Alberta
Reservoir is 42 miles long
120,000 acres
Excellent example of
reservoir
management and EOR
--
SMFA-ST 20071128
121
FORMATION DESCRIPTION
Gilwood fluvial sandstone (Devonian)
Extensive aquifer at the (downdip) western edge
of the pool
Regions of free gas at the (updip) edge
Six channel sands
-5
of
1
Upper layer: Channels 1 and 2
s
er
5%
y
9
a
L
in
a
t
Middle layer: Channels 3 to 5
con oil
Lower layer: Channel 6
the
Shales are present between the channels
SMFA-ST 20071128
122
FORMATION and OIL

PROPERTIES
Net pay 17.8 ft
Porosity 13.5%
Average permeability 230 md
Oil viscosity 0.6 cp (41 API)
Oil density 0.7 g/cc
bpp 1450 to 1800 psia
Miscible flood operating conditions
2500 psia, 144 F
SMFA-ST 20071128
123
FIELD HISTORY
Discovered in 1964
Primary recovery to 1968
Waterflood to 1985
Waterflood recovery
44.6% in the miscible
flood area
Miscible flood started in
1985
SMFA-ST 20071128
Recovery 245 MMSTB

or, 27.2% in the Unit
y
b
ry
e
v
co
e
r
if
%
e
,
t
s
6
d
a
a
4
o w e
m
o
i
l
t
f
Ul ter ued to b
wa ntin ted
co tima
es
124
MISCIBLE FLOOD DESIGN

Done on the basis of phase behaviour studies, slim tube,
slim tube simulation, core floods, and numerical field
simulation
15% HCPV solvent (enriched solution gas) slug, followed
by 25% HCPV lean gas slug, all with water (WAG ratio
1:1)
Injected solvent was first contact miscible with oil at 2500
psia and 144 F
Flood done in two stages (Stage 1 in 1985, Stage 2 in
1986), to minimize off-lease gas and NGL purchases for
solvent enrichment
SMFA-ST 20071128
125

Contd
Stage 1: 27 inverted five-spots

Stage 2: 28 inverted five-spots
95 infill wells drilled for the miscible flood
Expected incremental recovery 12.2%
Expected solvent recovery 73%
Expected chase gas recovery 44%
SMFA-ST 20071128
126
INJECTION and
PRODUCTION
Water
GOR
Oil
WOR
Solvent
SMFA-ST 20071128
WAG ratio
Tertiary oil
127
PRODUCTION HISTORY
Within a year after start-up, oil prices dropped, hence:
solvent inj rate was reduced
water rate increased,
WAG ratio was increased (cumulative WAG 1.34)
Initial design was for FCM, but was changed to MCM

in 1989-91 to cut down cost
Solvent slug size increased from 15% to 18% in 33 patterns
By 1991-92, entire project was on chase gas injection
SMFA-ST 20071128
128
PERFORMANCE
Tertiary recovery to April 1995 6.3% OOIP
Peak production 11,400 B/D in August 1990
at the end of solvent injection
85% of project oil
Effective Reservoir Management:production was tertiary
Collection and organization
of large amount of data
Interpretation and diagnosis
of flood performance
Timely and accurate
recommendations
Accessibilty of data base
to engineers and geologists
SMFA-ST 20071128
oil
GOR
Oil
WOR
Tertiary oil
129
PERFORMANCE Contd
Project-wide solvent injection 14.1% HCPV
Project-wide chase gas inj. was 9.3% HCPV
Solvent BT in 123 out of 163 wells
Solvent recovery (1995) 61.6% of injected
SMFA-ST 20071128
130
OPERATIONAL ASPECTS
54% of gas produced is chase gas
Solvent breakthrough identified by
(C2+C3)/C1 ratio [C2 and C3 added for enrichment;
before BT, ratio was 0.35, after BT >0.9]
solvent tracer breakthrough
GOR increase
Oil increase
Chase gas breakthrough identified by

C1 mole fraction increased
SMFA-ST 20071128
131
STREAMTUBE MODEL
STREAMLINES
Areal sweep
calculated from
the streamtube
model.
SMFA-ST 20071128
132
SOLVENT BREAKTHROUGH
Areal sweep patterns were used

to calculate solvent BT good
agreement with the actual.
SMFA-ST 20071128
133
COMPARISON WITH
WATERFLOOD
O il ra te
W a te rflo o d
P re d ic tio n
SMFA-ST 20071128
134
DISCUSSION OF FIELD
PROJECTS
BEAR LAKE CARDIUM UNIT
Pembina Field, Alberta
Rich Gas Drive Miscible Flood

Secondary Scheme
Successful
SMFA-ST 20071128
135
RESERVOIR LOCATION
Located in the
northwestern part
of Pembina field
(4th largest in
North America)
SMFA-ST 20071128
136
RESERVOIR PLAN VIEW

29 WELLS,
3 INJECTORS,
25 PRODUCERS
1 SHUT-IN
Water injector
Solvent injector
Water injector
Area: 4160 acres

SMFA-ST 20071128
137
FORMATION
DESCRIPTION
Depth 4,857 ft
Deltaic sand
bar 1 miles
wide, 6 miles
long
(Cretaceous)
Conglomerate
on top (up to
41 ft thick),
sand below, 0
to 35 ft thick
SMFA-ST 20071128
138
CROSS-SECTIONS
Notice the scale is highly exaggerated

Reservoir is very thin compared to the areal extent
Notice the cross-sections at different parts of the field
SMFA-ST 20071128
139
DEPTH TO THE TOP OF

PAY
SMFA-ST 20071128
140
TYPICAL PROPERTIES
Sand permeability 20 md, cgl 700 md

Wide permeability variation
Porosity in both 11%
il
o
r
oi
kh > 10 kv
v
r
se
ed
t
e
a
R hly tur
Connate water saturation 11%
hig ersa
d
OOIP 61.4 million STB
un
Initial BHP 2620 psia (1975: 1600 psia)
Oil viscosity 1.5 cp (37.6 API black oil)
Bubble point press 1304 psia, solution gas 310
scf/STB
Solvent viscosity 0.029 cp (1500 psia, 112 F)
SMFA-ST 20071128
141
PRODUCTION HISTORY
free gas
250 scf/STB
Oil
pb
600 STB/D
SMFA-ST 20071128
142
DETAILS
Production started in 1959

Pressure declined 2620 to
1300 psi during primary
9 years of primary produced
1.8 million bbls (RF <3%),
free gas satn. developed
Prod rate increased from 600
to 4,000 B/D, after miscible
was flood started
SMFA-ST 20071128
143

One solvent injector, two water injectors (to
displace oil and also to confine the solvent)
Rich gas slug displacement process:
60% LPG (propane and butane) + 40% methane
Complete miscibility with oil at press > 2100 psig;

multiple contact miscibility at lower pressures
Slug volume 1.2 million res bbls (3% HCPV)
WAG Process in 4 cycles
Chase gas slug 2.8 million res bbls methane

WAG Process
SMFA-ST 20071128
144
MONITORING OF THE FLOOD
Production histories
of two wells shown
Only these wells

showed solvent prod
These wells were completed in the upper conglomerate
Wells shut in due to excessive gas
production
SMFA-ST 20071128
145
PERFORMANCE
Good: oil prod rate increased
from 600 to 4000 B/D (5.6
million bbls oil)
low WOR and GOR
Often loss of injectivity
occurred in the solvent
injection well, when switching
from water to solvent
Only two wells showed LPG
production, with simultaneous
GOR increase
SMFA-ST 20071128
146
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Compositional simulation showed:
gravity segregation of gas and water a short distance
from the injection wells
high-methane content gas formed and accumulated at
the solvent-oil front
LPG enriched oil channelled rapidly through highpermeability layers, leading to early breakthrough
Gravity override was the most important mechanism

WAG was largely ineffective due to strong gravity
effect
Project produced additional oil over a waterflood
SMFA-ST 20071128
147
CARBON DIOXIDE INJECTION

FOR OIL RECOVERY
HISTORY
CO2 lab and field studies since 1950
Early 1970s
High oil prices
Oil embargo, declining production
Hence interest in CO2
Currently several large projects, total 62

projects in North America
SMFA-ST 20071128
148
CO2 PROCESSES
Two Types:
Immiscible (or subcritical) process for
heavy oils (10-25 API, 100-1000 cp)
Miscible process for light/medium oils (>30
API, <12 cp)
1950-60s: emphasis was on immiscible
CO2 and inert gas (15% CO2), but now
shifted to miscible CO2 flooding
SMFA-ST 20071128
149
CO2 PROPERTIES
Critical temp. 31 C; Critical press. 7.38 MPa
Highly soluble in oil
Soluble in water to lesser extent
Oil density, viscosity, mobility altered favourably
Immiscible : process capillarity, gravity, diffusion
play a role
At higher pressures (1000-3000 psia), CO2 behaves
as a hydrocarbon (ethane or propane)
SMFA-ST 20071128
150
CO2 MISCIBILITY
CO2 is initially immiscible with oil
Developes miscibility after several contacts
Mass transfer
Can be completely miscible above 5000 psi,
Miscible CO2 process
secondary or tertiary
oil recovery 50-60%,
incremental over waterflood 10-20%
SMFA-ST 20071128
151
CO2 AVAILABILITY
Decisive factor in application
Large CO2 deposits in Texas, New Mexico, Utah,
Wyoming, Mississipi
Colombia: in one reservoir CO2 is the solution gas
Unless CO2 is available locally, cost of
compression and transportation can be prohibitive
SMFA-ST 20071128
152
IMMISCIBLE CO2
FLOODING: MECHANISMS
For shallow, heavy oil reservoirs where
steam is not applicable
Mechanisms:
Oil swelling oil volume increases 10-50%
Oil viscosity reduction 1/10 to 1/100
Solution gas drive at blowdown 18%
recovery
Increased injectivity
SMFA-ST 20071128
clay stabilization and mineral reactions
153
IMMISCIBLE CO2 PROCESS

MECHANISMS: Contd
Gravity stabilization:
water gets lighter,
oil gets heavier
due to CO2
dissolution
IFT reduction:
Increased Nc
Foramation of
w/o emulsions
SMFA-ST 20071128
After Simon et al. SPEJ,

197813
154
CO2 IMMISCIBLE
PROCESSES
Carbonated water injection
Continuous CO2 injection
Simultaneous CO2 and water injection
CO2 slug process
Water-Alternating Gas process
CO2 huff n puff process
SMFA-ST 20071128
155
CABONATED WATER INJECTION

1952: Whorton ORCO Process
After Klins, M.: Carbon
Dioxide Flooding:Basic
Mechanisms and
Project Design,
Boston, 198411
d
e
l
i
a
f
s
s
ce
o
r
P
CO2 must diffuse out of water to contact oil

Diffusion slow, dissolution of CO2 in oil is minimal,
viscosity reduction nil
Carbonic acid causes corrosion
SMFA-ST 20071128
156
CONTINUOUS CO2
INJECTION
CO2 is injected continuously, until GOR
reaches economic limit
Gas, lighter, bypasses most of the oil,
High CO2 requirement: (scf of CO2 /STB of oil
h
g
i
h
produced)
nt is
Poor mobility ratio
Gravity Segregation
CO 2
en
m
e
ir
u
q
re
Not economical
SMFA-ST 20071128
157
CO2 SLUG PROCESS

CO2 slug, followed by continuous water
injection
Mechanisms and
Project Design,
Boston, 198411
f
a
o
s
:
CO2 slug size: 15-30% HCPV
t
n
c
m
a
o
a
Fo persi gas; luid
Process is inefficient
dis id in ous f
u isc
q
i
l
Mobility control, using foam?
av
SMFA-ST 20071128
as
158
SIMULTANEOUS CO2 AND

WATER INJECTION
Water is injected from the top, CO2 at the
bottom
is
y
g
o
l
o
Ge y
t
n
r
a
ve ort
imp
After Klins, M.: Carbon Dioxide Flooding:Basic Mechanisms and Project Design,
Boston, 198411
Reduced injectivity and corrosion

Dual injection system used in some cases:
Can add to Cost
SMFA-ST 20071128
159
CO2 WAG PROCESS

Alternating slugs of CO2 (l or g) and water,
followed by continuous water injection to
economic limit
Mechanisms and
Project Design,
Boston, 198411
CO2 requirement:
Miscible: 5 20 Mcf/bbl
Immiscible: 500 scf/bbl
SMFA-ST 20071128
if
d
e
v
o
r
p
d
m
e
i
l
e cyc
b
n
Ca is re
CO 2
160
CO2 WAG PROCESS Contd

Better areal and vertical sweep
Problems:
Mobile water causes bypassing of oil by CO2 due
to water shielding
Dual completions may be needed
Corrosion
Simulation Results for Tertiary Recovery:

Continuous CO2 - 20%
Slug Process - 25%
CO2 WAG - 38%
Simultaneous Injection - 47%
SMFA-ST 20071128
al
n
io
t
a
er ms
p
O ble
pro sible
s
po
161
CO2 HUFF N PUFF

PROCESS
Similar to Cyclic Steaming
Single well operation
Three Phases:
Injection, Soak, Production
to
e
v
i
t
i
s
n
e
s
s
s
e
s
i
e
t
i
L .
e
n
res eroge
het
Inject large volume of CO2 (2-50 MMscf) over one day or

several weeks
Well shut-in for 2-4 weeks
Well returned to production
Cycle repeated when production declines

Recovery lower for each subsequent cycle
SMFA-ST 20071128
162
CO2 HUFF N PUFF

PROCESS Contd
Mechanisms involved are:
Viscosity reduction
Oil swelling
Increased oil rel. perm
Solution gas drive
Process efficiency:
ts
c
e
j
o
r
p
t
s
lly
Mo e
a
i
c
r
we mer ssful
com ucce
s
un
Vol. of oil recovered/Unit vol. of CO2 injected

Vol. of oil recovered/Unit pay thickness
CO2 requirement is comparatively lower

SMFA-ST 20071128
163
CO2 MISCIBLE FLOODING

Almost all field projects are miscible type
Applied as a slug process or WAG process
Multiple contact miscible process
Combination of vaporizing and condensing gas drive
mechanisms
Vaporizes (C1-C4) from 10-12 cp oils
High press. (>2000 psi), and temp. 100-200 F
Extracts (C5-C30)
Intermediate press. (1000-2000 psi), and temp. <100 F
Develops a transition zone miscible with res. oil
Occurs when CO2 is sub-critical or super-critical
SMFA-ST 20071128
164
CO2 MISCIBLE FLOODING

Contd
Fluids within the transition zone are contiguously

miscible
Length of transition zone is a function of operating
pressure
Lower
pressures:
Longer Transition
Zone
Higher
pressures:
Greater
vaporization and
SMFA-ST 20071128
extraction
After Jarrel et al. Practical Aspects of CO2 Flssoding, SPE MonographVol. 22,
Richardson, TX, 200221
165
VAPORIZATION/EXTRACTION: CO2
AND MEAD-STRAWN STOCK TANK OIL
A minimum pressure required for

extraction
Depends on reservoir temperature
r
n
e
o
h
ti hig
c
a
tr r at
x
il
E he
o
/
r
o
g
p
i
a
h
v
CO 2 o
i
t
a
r
SMFA-ST 20071128
After Holm and Josendal, JPT, Dec.

197412
166
VAPORIZATION/EXTRACTION
BY CO2 Contd
Higher recoveries
at higher press.
At high press.
CO2 acts like a
solvent
Miscibility
at first contact
SMFA-ST 20071128

197412
167
HC MISCIBLE vs. CO2

MISCIBLE PROCESS
HC Miscible:
Oil must have high C2-C6 components
High pressures required: 5,000 psi
Limited applicability
CO2 Miscible:
Can develop miscibility with oils low in C2-C6
components
Miscibility can be developed at a range of reservoir
pressures
Wider applicability
SMFA-ST 20071128
168
PVT AND SOLUBILITY DATA:

CO2
Compressibility
Formation volume factor
Gas/Oil ratio
Density, Viscosity
Solubility in oil
Oil swelling
viscosity reduction
asphaltene precipitation
g .
n
o
tr f res
s
e so
r
a
All ction &
fun ssure ure
t
pre pera
tem
Solubility in water
Phase behaviour of CO2-crude oil systems
Liquid and vapour compositions
SMFA-ST 20071128
169
PHASE BEHAVIOUR OF CO2

e
s
n
de st
a
is t mo
CO 2 se a r
a
ph ervoi ures
t
s
a
r
e
r
e
p
tem
(After Stalkup,
Stalkup, Jr., F.I Miscible Displacement, SPE, Richardson, TX, 8,
SMFA-ST 20071128
1992)
1992)
170
GAS COMPRESSIBILITY
FACTOR, Z
Determined from PVT experiment:
Function of:
Pressure
Temperature
Gas composition
A known volume is
charged into the

PVT cell and
pressure-volume
relationship is PV
Z=
observed
nRT
SMFA-ST 20071128
of eal
n
io id ur
t
ia om vio
v
r
De 2 f eha
CO s b
ga
After Klins, M.: Carbon Dioxide Flooding:Basic

Mechanisms and Project Design, Boston, 198411
171
STARLING EQUATION
Co Do Eo 2
d 3
p = RT + Bo RT Ao 2 + 3 + 4 + bRT a +
T
T
T
T
2
d 6 c 3
a + + 2 (1 + 2 ) e
T
T
P = Pressure, MPa, T = temperature, K, = molar density, kg-moles/m3

The constants for CO2 in SI units are:
Ao = 0.176976
Do = 1.883482E06 a = 0.009434
c = 1.4197888E03
Bo = 0.024588
Eo = 2.631556E04 b = 0.003784
d = 0.055761
Co = 2.451876E04 R = 0.008314
= 0.0000961229 = 0.006421
SMFA-ST 20071128
172
VISCOSITY, g
CO2 is denser than hydrocarbon gases
After Klins, M.: Carbon Dioxide
Flooding:Basic Mechanisms and Project
Design, Boston, 198411
After Kennedy and Todos: AIChE J. Dec.

196139
At most res. press. and temps., CO2 viscosity is more gas-like

SMFA-ST 20071128
173
EFFECT OF CO2 ON DENSITY AND

VISCOSITY OF MEAD-STRAWN OIL
SMFA-ST 20071128

197412
174
CO2 SOLUBILITY IN OIL

CO2 solubility is
a function of
reservoir pressure,
temperature and
oil composition
CO2 solubility
increases as oil
API gravity
increases
41
SMFA-ST 20071128 After Welker and Dunlop: JPT, Aug. 1963
175
CO2 SOLUBILITY IN OIL

Solubility can be
measured in a PVT
cell
Cont,d
After Welker and Dunlop: JPT, Aug. 196341
CO2 solubility in
oil decreases as
temperature
increases
GOR increases as
solubility increases
- parallels Bo
CO2 solubility in Day crude oil
SMFA-ST 20071128
176
CO2 SOLUBILITY CORRELATIONS
UOP K = petroleum
characterization factor. Can be
calculated if API gravity and
viscosity of the oil are known.
Ref. Watson, K.M., Nelson, E.F. and
Murphy, G.B.: Characterization of
Petroleum Fractions, IEC, 1935, 27,
1460
After Simon and Graue, JPT Jan.
SMFA-ST 20071128
196542
177
SWELLING FACTOR
Increase in oil volume due to dissolution of CO2
Oil volume can increase by 10-50%
Definition:
Swelling Factor=
Volume at saturation pressure and temp.

Volume at atm. pressure and temp.
Function of oil composition, and the mole fraction

of CO2 dissolved
SMFA-ST 20071128
tor
c
a
f
ng
i
l
l
en
e
e
w
t
Sw
be
s
e
g
ran 02-1.4
1.
178
SWELLING FACTOR Contd

197412
After Simon and Graue, JPT Jan.
SMFA-ST 20071128
196542
Oil swelling is at its

maximum at saturation
pressure
At higher pressures, oil
volume decreases due to
extraction and vaporization
179
VISCOSITY REDUCTION
Function of:
Pressure
Temperature
XCO2 dissolved
Oil viscosity
The higher the oil
viscosity, the greater
the percentage
reduction
SMFA-ST 20071128
After Cragoe, C.E.: Thermodynamic properties

of Petroleum Products, Washington, 1957443
180
ASPHALTENE PRECIPITATION
Asphaltenes are heavy ends of crude oil
Precipitate when contacted by CO2
Cause permeability reduction

Experimental Determination:
PVT Cell Method
Millipore Filter Method
Slim Tube Experiment
Permeability by Darcys Law:
SMFA-ST 20071128
q = flow rate, m3/s, = viscosity,

Pa.s L = length, m, A = area
cross section , p = pressure, Pa
q L
k=
Ap
181
CO2 SOLUBILITY IN
WATER
Solubility is 1/4th of that in oil
Function of:
Pressure
Temperature
Salinity
Decrease in water density

Improved gravity effects due to reduced density
difference between oil and water
SMFA-ST 20071128
182
CO2 SOLUBILITY IN
WATER Contd
CO2 forms Carbonic Acid with water
CO2 + H 2O H 2CO3
Corrosion in tubings, valves etc.
Asphaltene precipitation
Clay stabilization
H 2CO3 + CaCO3 Ca ( HCO3 )2
H 2CO3 + MgCO3 Mg ( HCO3 )2
Loss of CO2 to water

Increases CO2 consumption
SMFA-ST 20071128
183
CO2 SOLUBILITY IN WATER Contd

After Dodds et al. I & EC Chem. Eng. Data series,
195644
After Stewart, P. and Munjal, P.B.: J. of Chem. Eng.

Data, 197045
Effect of p and T on CO2 solubility Effect of salinity on CO2 solubility
SMFA-ST 20071128
184
PHASE BEHAVIOUR: CO2CRUDE OIL SYSTEMS

PVT Experiment
Constant composition expansion at constant
temperature (e.g. reservoir temperature)
Phase changes and phase volumes noted for
several pressures
Pressure-Volume diagram
Pressure-Composition diagram
Bubble point pressure
Dew Point Pressure
l
a
u
Critical Point
is
SMFA-ST 20071128
n
o
i
t
a s
v
r
se nge
b
o
ha
c
e
s
V
a
ph tial
f
o en
ess
185
PHASE BEHAVIOUR: CO2CRUDE OIL SYSTEMS Contd

After Goodrich, J.H., SPE 8832, IOR Symp., Tusla, O.K.,
198038
Phase
behaviour of
Kelly-Snyder
reservoir oil
and CO2 at
reservir
temperature
of 130 F
SMFA-ST 20071128
186
TERNAY PHASE DIAGRAM :

CO2- CRUDE OIL SYSTEMS
Phase behaviour of
Wasson crude oil
and CO2 at the
reservoir
temperature of 105
F and 2,000 psia
SMFA-ST 20071128
After Gadner et al., JPT,

198147
187
EFFECT OF PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE

ON PHASE BEHAVIOR
(After Stalkup,
Stalkup, Jr., F.I Miscible
Displacement, SPE, Richardson, TX, 8,
199210)
Pressure A< B< C
o- t
w
a
T
r
n
e
o
ll egi ures
a
Sm se r ress
a
ph her p
hig
SMFA-ST 20071128
188
MECHANISMS: CO2-MCM
PROCESS
For miscibility: Res. oil
and injected gas must
lie on opposite sides of
the critical tie line
CO2 extracts C5-C30
components from oil
Extraction and
Dispersion occurs
until equilibr. is
reached
Eventually miscible
bank is formed
SMFA-ST 20071128
(After Metcalf and Yarborough, SPEJ,

SPEJ, Aug. 197948)
189
CO2 MINIMUM MISCIBILITY

PRESSURE
Definition: MMP
Lowest pressure at which reservoir oil becomes
nd
a
miscible with the injected gas
re
Function of:
Pressure
Temperature
Oil composition
Injected gas composition
SMFA-ST 20071128
atu ixed
r
e
p re f
m
te n a
r
i
nd n
o
o
i
a
t
v
i
re sitio in
ser pos
u
e
s
R com
es mpo erta
r
p
g s co hin c
oil
n
i
t
a
a
it
r
g
w
e
Op ction aried
inje be v
can its
lim
190
DETERMINATION OF CO2 MMP

The first step in evaluating feasibility of miscible
process
Specific to:
Reservoir characteristics
Reservoir fluid properties
Injection fluid properties
The various methods include:
Slim Tube Experiment

Rising Bubble method
PVT Cell method
MMP Correlations
SMFA-ST 20071128
191
SLIM TUBE EXPERIMENT

Objective: To
determine the
operating
pressure
Designed to
isolate the
effects of phase
behaviour from
other factors
Miscibility
through Multiple
contact
SMFA-ST 20071128
(After Yelling, W.F. and Metcalf, R.F., JPT,

JPT, 198051)
192
SLIM TUBE EXPERIMENT Contd

Continuous injection of CO2 at the desired
pressure and temperature until 1.2 PV is
injected
Sight glass enables the observation of phase
changes and the formation of transition zone
Oil recovery at CO2 breakthrough and at the
end of displacement is calculated
% recovery =
SMFA-ST 20071128
separator liquid volume volume factor

pore volume
100
193

Conditions for miscibility:
No interface observed through sight glass
~ 85% oil recovery at CO2 breakthrough
95-98% oil recovery at 1.2 PV gas injected
Experiment repeated at several pressures

including reservoir pressure
A plot of oil recovery vs. pressure is
constructed
SMFA-ST 20071128
194
SLIM TUBE EXPERIMENT

Contd
MMP = Pressure beyond which no significant

increase in oil recovery
(After Yelling, W.F. and Metcalf, R.F., JPT,

JPT, 198051)
SMFA-ST 20071128
If miscibility is
not achieved
over a range of
pressures, slim
tube length
and/or
injection gas
composition
are varied and
the
experiments
repeated
195

Operating pressure must be above the
bubble point pressure even if MMP is
lower
The objective of slim tube experiments
is limited, and so are the data obtained
from them.
nts
SMFA-ST 20071128
e
m
i
r
pe
x
or
e
f
e
e
t
b
tu
itu
t
s
m
i
b
l
S
su
a
ld
t
e
i
o
f
n
r
o
s
are
d
o
flo
e
r
o
c
ts
s
e
t
scale
196
MMP: RISING BUBBLE METHOD

Based on the IFT between the oil and the
injection gas
Bubble change in size
and shape as miscibility
is approached
MMP is inferred from
the pressure dependence
of the behaviour of
the bubble
SMFA-ST 20071128
(After Christiensen et al. SPERE,

SPERE, Nov. 198753)
197
MMP: PVT METHOD

Known volumes of oil and injection gas are metered
into PVT cell at constant T
Pressure is increased in small increments until no
interface is seen through the sigh glass
MMP is taken as the pressure at which the interface
disappears
Experiment repeated by varying gas composition until
miscibility is developed
Bubble point
Miscibility depends on single
contact between oil and gaspressure is the lower
SMFA-ST 20071128
limit of MMP
198
MMP CORRELATIONS
National Petroleum Council54
Based on oil gravity and reservoir depth
Yellig and Metcalf51

Res. Temperature and oil MW of C5+ fraction
Holm and Josendal11, 55

Res. Temp., MW of C5-C30, CO2 density at MMP
Mungan32
Extended Holm and Josendal correlation to include higher
molecular weight oils
Johnson and Pollin56; Alston57

Accounts for impurities in CO2
Cronquist58
CO2 with CH4 and N2, MW of C5+, Res. temp.
SMFA-ST 20071128
199
MMP CORR.: NATIONAL

PETROLEUM COUNCIL
Based on oil gravity and res. depth
Pmax=(0.6D)-300
SMFA-ST 20071128
(From Enhanced Oil Recovery, Washington, D.C., 197654
200
CO2-MMP CORRELATION
Contd
Cronquists Correlation:
Mole percent of Methane and Nitrogen

MW of pentane plus fraction in the oil
Reservoir temperature
Pmdmp = 15.988 (Tres )
( )
0.744206 + 0.0011038 MWC+5 + 0.0015279 YC1
Applicable to:
24-44 API crude oil
Res. Temperature 71-248 F
SMFA-ST 20071128
od
o
g he
s
d
l or t
o
H ly f
on its
d
un cifie
e
sp
Pmdmp = psi
Tres = F
MWC5+=
lb-mole/lb-mole
YC1 = mole % of
CH4 , N2
201
CO2-MMP CORRELATION
Contd
Alston et al.s Correlation:

Pmdmp = 8.78 104 (T )
1.06
( C5+ )
1.78
(VOL / INT )
0.136
( 87.8 / Tcm )
(170 / Tcm )
Pmdmp = psi; T = res. temp., F ; C5+ = lb-mole/ lb-mole

VOL/INT = ratio of C1 and N2 to intermediate (C2-C4), CO2, H2S
Tcm = pseudocritical temp. of pure or impure CO2, F
n
Tcm = wiTci 459.7

i =1
wi = mole fraction of
component i Tci = critical
temp. of component i
SMFA-ST 20071128
202
COMPARISON OF CORRELATIONS
Correlations are
useful, but are less
accurate than
experimental results
SMFA-ST 20071128
203
FACTORS AFFECTING MMP

Temperature
MMP increases with increase in temperature
Approximately 15 psi/ F
C5-C30 content of oil

Higher the conc., lower the MMP
MW distribution of C5-C30 components
Higher conc. of C5-C12 lower CO2 MMP
Type of compounds in C5-C30
Aromatics have lower MMP than paraffinic comp.
Impurities
N2 and C1 increase MMP
H2S and SO2 lower MMP
SMFA-ST 20071128
204
CO2 REQUIREMENT
CO2 slug size must be large enough to develop a
miscible zone
V = Vs + Vd
V = total volume of CO2 required, m3
Vs = vol. of CO2 dissolved in oil and water
Vd = vol. of CO2 in the mixing zone
Vs at res. temp. and injection pressure can be

determined experimentally
Vd calculated from mixing zone length where conc. of CO2
between 10 and 90%
x1090 = 3.625 K Lt
SMFA-ST 20071128
t = time for CO2

to breakthrough
205
CO2 REQUIREMENT Contd

Dispersion at the front and back of the
slug:
x1090 = 3.625
K Lco2 oil + K Lco2 N2
CO2 breakthrough time:
A h.Ea .Ev (1 Sor )

t=
qi
ell
w
he gher
t
r
e
t
hi
g
n
r
e
e
a
l
t h i re m
e
,
h
g
T
in re q u
c
a
sp CO 2
the
A = pilot area, m2; f = porrosity, fraction; h =

thickness, m;
Ea, Ev = areal and vertical sweep efficiencies,
fraction;
Sor= residual oil saturation left in the swept zone, pv;
SMFA-ST 20071128
qi = injection rate, m3/s
206
SOURCES OF CO2
Two types of sources:
ent
m
e
ir
u
q
e
0
r
CO 2 e 50-10 as
Natural Sources
r
b
o
f
n
a
y
c
3 /da
rs
Several in the USA
a
t
e
f
y
MM as 10
99% pure, minimal purification
long
transported by pipeline, problem of hydrate formation
Anthropogenic Sources
From power plants, natural gas plants etc.

85-90% pure, contains SO2, H2S, CO, O2 etc.
Needs purification
Trucks, tankers and pipeline transport
CO2Sequestration is sought after due to limited

supply, cost as well as environmental concerns
SMFA-ST 20071128
207
SIMULATION
Laboratory Experiments are essential
but not practical in many cases
Simulators are valuable tools to evaluate
the suitability of a particular process for
a given reservoir
identifies sensitivity of certain variables on
oil recovery
for predicting:
SMFA-ST 20071128
process efficiency, recovery rate, economics,

options for operating procedures etc.
208
SIMULATION: GENERAL
PROCEDURE
Derive Partial Differential Equations
State Boundary and Initial Conditions
What is missing in process description will be missing in the
results also
Replace the partial differential equations with

diffrence eqations
Truncation error is incurred
Truncation error appears as dispersion; often dominates
physical dispersion
SMFA-ST 20071128
209
SIMULATION:
PROCEDURE Contd
Choose a suitable grid to represent the reservoir

Number of blocks depends on the purpose of
simulation
Write the difference equation for all the grid

blocks
Solve the resulting linear equations using a
suitable linear solver
Determines the CPU time
Results in the form of:

Tables, graphs, animations
SMFA-ST 20071128
ng
i
s
es nt
c
o
pr orta ion
t
s
t
Po n imp mula
i
is a t of s
par
210
IMPLICIT vs. EXPLICIT

Implicit:
Implicit representation of transmissibilities and
flow terms
Unknown values at the new time step are
evaluated using pressure, saturation and
temperature
The resulting algebraic equations are nonlinear, and must be linearized by a suitable
method, such as Newtons method
SMFA-ST 20071128
211
IMPLICIT vs. EXPLICIT

Contd
Explicit:
Explicit representation of
transmissibilities and flow terms
known values from the previous time step is
used at the new time step
Explicit approach is far less stable than

implicit approach
SMFA-ST 20071128
212
TYPES OF COMMERCIAL
SIMULATORS
Mainly Two types:
Black Oil Simulators
Compositional Simulators
s
e
s
es
SMFA-ST 20071128
Also, Thermal Simulators

oc
r
p
le
b
i
c
Mis t use nal
s
mu positio
com lators
u
sim
213
TYPES OF SIMULATORS
Contd
Black Oil Simulator

Three components, 3 phases: oil, water, gas
Oil is treated as non-volatile component
Limited data required
oil-water permeabilities, rel. permeabilities

capillary pressure
fluid viscosities, fluid densities
Examples:
IMEX (CMG)
ECLIPSE(Schlumberger)
SMFA-ST 20071128
214
TYPES OF SIMULATORS
Contd
Oil has n components

water and gas are among the n components
Far more data are required, especially K values
Examples:
SMFA-ST 20071128
GEM (CMG)
ECLIPSE (Schlumberger)
EXODUS (PetroStudies)
EXOTHERM (PetroStudies)
STARS (CMG)
THERMAL
SIMULATOR
S
215
SIMULATORS FOR CO2

PROCESSES
None available at present that models all the
relevant aspects of the process
The categories applicable are:
Miscible simulators
d
e
r
i
u
q
e
r
Compositional simulators
h
a
t
c
a
a
d
e
t
r
Hybrid simulators Inpu es fo
i
r
e
a
p
v
y
t
SMFA-ST 20071128
216
CO2 SIMULATORS Contd

Models CO2-oil phase behaviour, but ignores
viscous fingering
EOS or K-values are used to calculate the
distribution of components in the phases
Requires large amount of data
properties of pseudocomponents are to be estimated
validation of these estimates are essential
experimental values are used to fine tune the
predictions
SMFA-ST 20071128
217
CO2 SIMULATORS Contd

Hybrid Simulators
Treats CO2 as a miscible fluid above MMP
Allows for component partitioning, to a limited
extent, when pressure falls below MMP
Requires more data than a black oil simulator
MMP, solubility data, swelling factor, K-values etc.
Suffers from numerical dispersion

compositional paths deviate from actual trajectories
SMFA-ST 20071128
218
DISCUSSION OF FIELD
PROJECTS
MEANS SAN ANDRES UNIT, TEXAS
Successful Tertiary CO2 flood
Excellent example of reservoir management

and recovery optimization
SMFA-ST 20071128
219
RESERVOIR LOCATION
Located in Andrews
county,
50 miles northwest
of Midland,Texas.
SMFA-ST 20071128
220
FIELD HISTORY
Discovered in 1934, and developed on 40-acre and 20 acre
spacing
Primary production by fluid expansion
Unitized in 1963, and waterflood began
CO2 flood planned in 1980
Lab Studies
Pilot Test
Reservoir Simulation
Infill Drilling to 10 acre from 40 and 20 acre spacing
SMFA-ST 20071128
221
San Andres formation dolomite, minor amounts of
shale and anhydrite
A north-south trending anticline separated into north
and south domes
4200-4800 ft deep
1400 ft thick, but only upper 200-300 ft are productive
Porosity 9%
Permeability 20 md
Oil viscosity 6 cp, low saturation press (310 psia)
SMFA-ST 20071128
222
FORMATION and OIL

PROPERTIES
SMFA-ST 20071128
223
CO2 FLOOD DESIGN

Relatively high oil viscosity, hence MMP between
1850 and 2300 psia
Low parting pressure, hence an operating pressure of
2000 psia was selected
High swelling factor: 1.6, which could yield 18%
recovery by swelling only
CO2 flood recovery was estimated to be about twice
waterflood recovery
SMFA-ST 20071128
224
CO2 PILOT
1 acre pilot in the north part
Showed that CO2 mobilized the oil, as evidenced
by logs, sampling well, and core results
Recovery 10-15% OOIP
No CO2 override observed
CO2-WAG injection was no problem
Reservoir found to be more heterogeneous than
previous estimate
SMFA-ST 20071128
225
CO2 FLOOD DETAILS
SMFA-ST 20071128
226
FIELDWIDE CO2 FLOOD

172 patterns
on 8500
acres
40% HCPV
CO2 slug; inj.
rate
70MMcf/D
SMFA-ST 20071128
227
PRODUCTION HISTORY
CO2 Injection
SMFA-ST 20071128
228
PERFORMANCE
Response to CO2 better than expected: 2400
B/D more than the expected 7500 B/D
Incremental oil 3300 B/D
CO2 utilization 15.2 Mcf/bbl tertiary oil
Continuous monitoring (injection and
production) is very important, because of
high cost
SMFA-ST 20071128
229
DISCUSSION OF FIELD
PROJECTS
SACROC UNIT KELLY-SNYDER
FIELD, TEXAS
Oldest CO2 flood (1972)
Still in operation
SMFA-ST 20071128
Incremental recovery 6% OOIP

Successful
230
RESERVOIR LOCATION
Major unitized field in

Scurry County, Texas
SACROC: Scurry Area
Canyon Reef Operators
Committee
SMFA-ST 20071128
231
Limestone (Pennsylvania age) massive NESW trending reef, thinner flanks
Depth 6700 ft, Temperature 130 F
Initial pressure 3122 psig
Thickness:
avg. 213 ft (800 ft on the crest to <50 ft on the
flanks)
1256 wells on 50,000 acres

Porosity 7.6% Permeability 19.4 md
Initial oil saturation 64%
Oil rich in C2-C4 (31.5%)
SMFA-ST 20071128
232
FIELD HISTORY
Discovered in 1948
2.75106 STB oil in place
Primary recovery by solution gas drive:
recovery factor <20%
Unitized in 1953, pressure maintenance by
injecting water in central part of the
reservoir
Evaluated HC Miscible process
Deemed uneconomic due to high mobility ratio,
large density difference and high cost of propane
1968: decision to do a CO2 flood

SMFA-ST 20071128
233
Water inj. in the central

area
CO2 inj. in the flanks
SMFA-ST 20071128
234
CO2 FLOOD DESIGN

CO2 injection begins in 1972 in phase 1
20% HCPV slug of CO2, followed by continuous water
injection into 174 inverted nine-spot patterns ahead of
the centre-line waterflood
Later, 28 additional patterns added
CO2 MMP 2300 psig
Operating pressure 2696-2946 psi in phases 1, 2 & 3
WAG chosen instead of continuous water injection
Initially, 6% HCPV CO2 followed by 2.8% HCPV water (WAG
ratio 0.47:1)
Changed to 6% HCPV CO2 followed by 3.6% HCPV water
(WAG ratio 0.6:1)
SMFA-ST 20071128
235
FIELD PERFORMANCE
Primary: oil rate reached 130,000 B/D as a result
of rapid development
Production declined to 50,000 B/D
Peaked to ~90,000 B/D in 1957 as a result of
pressure maintenance
Injection rate of CO2 ~17 MMcf/D
Oil prod rate peaked at ~200,000 B/D in 1974
SMFA-ST 20071128
236
FIELD PERFORMANCE
W a te r in j ra te
GOR
W a te r p ro d ra te
P re ssu re
O il p ro d ra te
C O 2 in j sta rte d
SMFA-ST 20071128
237
CO2 INJECTION RATE

Purchased CO2 is pipelined 200 miles
Shaded area is the produced CO2 that is re-injected
SMFA-ST 20071128
238
ADDITIONAL CO2 INJECTION AND

PRODUCTION PER ADDITIONAL BBL
OF OIL vs. CO2 SLUG
Notice that as the CO2
slug size is increased,
there is a large
increase in both the
CO2 injected and CO2
produced, per
bbl of incremental oil.
Economics deteriorate
rapidly with an
increase in slug size.
SMFA-ST 20071128
239
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COST

PER BBL OF ADDITIONAL OIL vs.
CO2
SLUG
$85.00
Notice the large increase in
the operating cost per bbl
of incremental oil, with CO2
slug size.
Both the cost of CO2 and
the treatment of the
produced CO2 are
expensive.
As a result, the 20% HCPV
slug was reduced to 12%.
SMFA-ST 20071128
$11.00
20% slug
(design)
12% slug
240
INCREMENTAL OIL RECOVERY

OVER WATERFLOOD vs. CO2
SLUG (Theoretical)
W a te rflo o d
SMFA-ST 20071128
241
N2 INJECTION FOR OIL

RECOVERY
High oil prices and increasing energy demand
Economic alternative to natural gas
Flue gas, Exhaust gas
87% N2, 12% CO2, 1% CO
Sources Limited
Air Injection
78% N2, 21% O2, 1% Other gases
Corrosion problems
SMFA-ST 20071128
242
N2 INJECTION Contd
Chemically Inert, Environmentally Safe

Sources Abundant
1/4th the Cost of pipe pine Natural Gas
Compressibility lower than Natural Gas
30 Field projects in the 1980s
N2 Immiscible
Pressure Maintenance
Gas Cycling
Gas Cap Production
Gravity Enhancement
Attic Oil Recovery
Drive Fluid for Miscible Slugs

N2 Miscible
SMFA-ST 20071128
a
Be g
rly
a
e
as
s
0
7
9
as 1
OR
E
an
s
n e
a
o
d
h
plie d bot fshor
p
A ho
of
t
d
Me re an
sh o
243
N2 MISCIBLE PROCESS
Multiple Contact Miscible Process
Similar to Vaporizing Gas Drive
Requires Longer Time and Larger Number of
Contacts
At High Pressures Only
Suitable for Light and Volatile Oils in Deep

Reservoirs Nitrogen-Reservoir Oil Phase
Behavior is the Controlling
Factor
SMFA-ST 20071128
244
N2- RESERVOIR OIL SYSTEMS

Causes an Increase in the Dew Point Pressure of
Condensate and Volatile Oils
After Vogel, J.L. and Yarborough, L.: Paper

8815, EOR Symp. Tulsa, O.K. Apr. 20SMFA-ST SPE
20071128
23, 19808
Can cause Retrograde Liquid

Loss
245
N2- RESERVOIR OIL SYSTEMS Contd

Liquid Dropout and Re-evaporation
After Renner, et al.: SPERE, Feb.
19899
Re-evaporation of
Condensate
Liquid Dropout
below Dew Point
SMFA-ST 20071128
Pressure
After Vogel, J.L. and Yarborough, L.: Paper

SPE 8815, EOR Symp. Tulsa, O.K. Apr. 2023, 19808
246
PHASE BEHAVIOR: N2- RES.

OIL SYSTEMS
Solubility in oil and swelling effects neglibible
(0-2% at 4,000-5.500 psia)

N2 vaporizes C2-C6 components from the oil at high press.
Vapour phase is
enriched with C2C6
Residual Liquid
phase remains
SMFA-ST 20071128
After Ahmed, T. and Menzie, D.: SPEJ, Apr.

198310
247
PHASE BEHAVIOR: N2- RES.

OIL SYSTEMS Contd
Relatively Large 2phase region even at

high pressure
SMFA-ST 20071128
After Ahmed, T. and Menzie, D.: SPEJ, Apr.

198310
248
EFFECT OF N2 ON FLUID
PROPERTIES
Changes in physical properties of reservoir
fluids when contacted by N2
Formation Volume Factor

Gas/Oil Ratio
ive
s
n
e
e
g
t
n
x
E
ha
Solution Gas Gravity
c
d
l
n
i
a
o
e
e
v
i
h
t
s
f
n
N2
o
e
t
y
s
Density
b
In
e
d
rti
e
e
t
p
c
ro conta
P
Viscosity
sly
hen
SMFA-ST 20071128
u
w
o
u
n
ti
n
o
c
249
EFFECT OF PRESSURE AND

TEMPERATURE ON MISCIBILITY
Recovery
insensitive to
temperature at low
pressures
Vaporization and
Stripping minimum
at low pressures
Oil must have high content of low

and intermediate MW components
SMFA-ST 20071128
After Rushing et al., JPT, Dec.

19784
250
N2-MMP CORRELATIONS
Very few correlations are available
Lack of sufficient data
Hudgins et al. Correlation:
Pmm = 5568e
R1
+ 3641e
R2
R1 = 792.06 [C2 C5 ] / M C7+ (T 0.25 )
R2 = 2.158 106 C15.632 / M C7+ (T 0.25 )

C1 = mole fraction of methane in the oil
C2-C5 = mole fraction of ethane through pentane, including CO2 and H2S
SMFA-ST 20071128
251
OPERATIONAL ASPECTS: N2 INJ.

N2 process is less effective after a waterfood
Less oil in place
Less C2-C4 available for extraction

Presence of mobile water
Viscous fingering
Unfavorable mobility ratio
Early gas breakthrough
Higher recoveries when injection and production
schemes enhance gravity stabilization
SMFA-ST 20071128
252
SOURCES OF NITROGEN
From Air
78% N2, 21% O2, 1% Other

N2 must be separated
Cryogenic Distillation
Produces pure N2
From Industrial Waste Gases

Contains CO2, CO, O2 and oxides of N2
Must be purified
88% pure N2 with other gases
SMFA-ST 20071128
253
SOURCES OF NITROGEN
Contd
N2 generation on site or from supplier

Cost, quality and the nature of the yield depends
on the process used
Plant discharge pressure is 100-900 psia
Must be compressed ~100 fold for injection
N2-Rejection plant may be required

Recovers methane and NGL
N2 purified, compressed and re-injected
SMFA-ST 20071128
254
DISCUSSION OF FIELD
PROJECTS
JAY /LEC FIELDS N2 FLOOD
N2 flood in a
deep, hot reservoir
Successful
SMFA-ST 20071128
255
RESERVOIR LOCATION
Florida
Panhandle and
South Alabama
SMFA-ST 20071128
256
Smackover carbonate
7 miles long, 3 miles wide
Depth 15,000 ft
Avg. thickness 350 ft
Original reservoir pressure 7,850 psi (2830 psia
saturation pressure)
Temperature 285 F
Porosity 14% Permeability 20 md
Oil viscosity 0.8 cp (51 API), sour (8.8 mol%
H2S)
SMFA-ST 20071128
257
FIELD HISTORY
Discovered in 1970
137 wells on 160 acre spacing
Produced on primary, with peak production of
110,000 B/D in 1978
Waterflood started in 1974
Injected C1 while N2 supply was being arranged
N2 miscible WAG flood started in 1981
Incremental recovery by N2 expected to be ~10%
(current ~3%)
SMFA-ST 20071128
258
NITROGEN FLOOD DESIGN

Oil miscible with C1, N2, and CO2 at reservoir
conditions
20% HCPV N2 slug
N2 was purchased from supplier
N2-Oil MMP 3600 psi
N2 injection pressure 7600 psig
Additional compression was needed after delifery
Wellhead modification was needed to accommodate WAG
process
Casing pressure relief system, Tubing failure

SMFA-ST 20071128
etc.
259
FLOOD PATTERN
18 Injectors
67 producers
Initial N2 BT within 1
yr
N2 BT in 14
producers
Current
injection:
in 4 years
of
injection
61
106 cu ft/D N
2
172,000 B/D water

(WAG)
Prod. ~10,000 B/D
SMFA-ST 20071128
260
PRODUCTION HISTORY
Actual oil production is shown to 1982.
Also shown is prediction for N2 WAG,
and subsequent waterflood. Dotted lines
indicate the expected performance for
primary and waterflood only.
SMFA-ST 20071128
261
WELL TEST EXAMPLE

Best well:
In this well, oil prod rate
increased from 35 B/D to
2600 B/D in one month,
while water cut
decreased from 93 to
48%. This happened one
month before N2 BT.
The figure shows oil rate
of 1500 B/D, and water
cut increasing to 80%. N2
production is very high:
peak of 7 MMcf/D and the
end rate of 2 MMcf/D.
SMFA-ST 20071128
262
SIMULATED OIL RATE
SMFA-ST 20071128
263
IMMISCIBLE GAS INJECTION

(Subcritical)
Has been around since 1900s
Re-injection of produced gas
Primary Operation to Increase Productivity
Secondary Operation
To increase Ultimate Oil Recovery
Basically Two Types

External Gas Injection
Dispersed Gas Injection
SMFA-ST 20071128
on
i
t
a
c
sifi the
s
a
l
C
n
on
o
i
t
d
a
e
c
bas ive Lo
on
t
i
a
t
l
c
e
e
R
Inj
s
a
of G
264
DISPERSED GAS INJECTION

Contd
Also known as Gas Cycling

Done on a pattern basis
Suitable for thin, homogeneous reservoirs with
low structural relief and low permeability
Faster production
Gravity effects not taken advantage
Gas fingering, Low sweep efficiency
Higher operational cost
Lower oil recoveries compared to gravity drive
SMFA-ST 20071128
265
EXTERNAL GAS INJECTION

Suitable for reservoirs with good structural
relief
Gas injected at the crestal portion
Number of wells depends on injectivity of wells for
good areal coverage
Gravity Drainage is the main mechanism

Must have good vertical permeability (>200 md)
Gas fingering reduced
Better sweep efficiency
SMFA-ST 20071128
266
PERFORMANCE CALCULATION
Based on Buckley-Leverett theory for
waterflooding
Buckley-Leverett frontal velocity:
q df g
vsg =
A dS g
Displacement Efficiency,
Cumulative vol. Of oil
produced and
Instantaneous GOR can
be calculated
vsg = gas velocity, m/s; q = volumetric flow rate,
m3/d
A = cross sectional area open to flow, m2
= porosity, fraction; fg = fractional flow of gas
Sg = gas saturation
SMFA-ST 20071128
267
CHEMICAL METHODS
Polymer flooding
Surfactant flooding
Alkaline flooding
Micellar flooding
ASP: Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer flooding
Other: solvent, emulsion, CO2
Combinations with thermal methods
SMFA-ST 20071128
268
CHEMICAL EOR HOLDS

A BRIGHT FUTURE
Conventional oil RF <33%, worldwide
Unrecoverable oil = 2x1012 bbls
Much of it is recoverable by chemical methods
Chemical methods are attractive:

Burgeoning energy demand and high oil prices,
most likely for the long-term
Diminishing reserves
Advancements in technologies
Better understanding of failed projects
SMFA-ST 20071128
269
CHEMICAL EOR TARGET

IN SELECTED COUNTRIES
173
Assumed:
Primary Rec. 33.3 %OOIP
Chem. Flood Rec. 33.3 %OIP
160
120
100
100
84
80
77
63 61
60
51
40
40
SMFA-ST 20071128
UK
Dubai
0.9 0.6 0.3 0.2
France
Germany
Romania
Denmark
India
Oman
Canada
Mexico
Nigeria
Libya
Russia
Venezuela
Abu Dhabi
Kuwait
Iraq
Iran
S. Arabia
USA
12 10 10 9
Brazil
20
Norway
26 24
China
Billion Bbls
140
Qatar
180
270
CHEMICAL FLOODS
HISTORY
USA
CHINA
300,000
Total
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
Polymer
5,000
Micellar
Surfactant
Oil Production, B/D
Oil Production, B/D
Total
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
Alkaline
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
SMFA-ST 20071128
50,000
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
271
CHEMICAL FLOODS PROJECTS

AND PRODUCTION
25,000
250
206
No. of Projects
150
15,000
138
124
100
50
10,000
85
42
50
Oil Production, B/D
20,000
200
49
5,000
30
12
11
10
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
SMFA-ST 20071128
272
Chemical Floods -
CURRENT STATUS
WORLDWIDE
Indonesia
India
Venezuela
USA
France
China
Total Number of Projects: 27

OGJ April 12, 2004
SMFA-ST 20071128
273
Chemical Floods -
PRODUCTION
WORLDWIDE
France
Indonesia
USA
China
Total oil production: 300,000 B/D

OGJ April 12, 2004
SMFA-ST 20071128
274
CHEMICAL EOR TARGET

If we assume the recovery factor to be 33%
worldwide, the volume of oil left in the
reservoirs at the end of secondary recovery
will be 2.6 trillion barrels possibly a third
of it, i.e.
12
1x10
barrels
could be recovered by chemical methods.

SMFA-ST 20071128
275
CHEMICAL FLOODS
HISTORY
USA
CHINA
300,000
Total
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
Polymer
5,000
Micellar
Surfactant
Oil Production, B/D
Oil Production, B/D
Total
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
Alkaline
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
SMFA-ST 20071128
50,000
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
276
PRINCIPLES OF OIL
DISPLACEMENT
Mobility Ratio, M
defined as the ratio of the mobility of displacing to
the mobility of displaced liquid
Capillary Number, Nc
defined as v/, where
= displacing viscosity, poise
v = Darcy velocity, cm/sec
= interfacial tension, dyne/cm
SMFA-ST 20071128
Various processes rely

on altering M, or Nc, or
both through temperature
changes, emulsification,
etc.
277
EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO

1
1 PV Inj
2 PV Inj
3 PV Inj
0.9
Displaceable Oil, PV
0.8
3 PV
0.7
0.6
2 PV
0.5
1 PV
0.4
0.3
0.2
1
10
100
1000
Mobility Ratio, M
SMFA-ST 20071128
278
EFFECT OF
CAPILLARY NUMBER
SMFA-ST 20071128
279
EOR CLASSIFICATION
FROM RUSSIA
Chemical flooding methods

SMFA-ST 20071128
280
CURRENT STATUS OF EOR IN

RUSSIA
Many EOR projects have been carried
out, but little known. An example
Tatarstan, Russia
E
0
0
2
2
st s
e
T
OR
SMFA-ST 20071128
281
HEAVY OIL RECOVERY

METHODS - Non-Thermal
Waterflooding Relatively ineffective, but economical

Polymer flooding No better than waterflooding, and costly
Surfactant flooding Adsorption limits effectiveness
Alkaline floods Rapid adsorption, other problems
Emulsion floods Injectivity is a problem, also cost
Immiscible CO2 WAG flooding process Good
Solvent flooding Slow mixing with oil, also high cost
Combinations Generally costly, ineffective
SMFA-ST 20071128
282
POLYMER FLOODING
drive
water
water
polymer slug
oil
residual oil
Polymer Flood
SMFA-ST 20071128
283
POLYMER FLOODING
Loss to rock by adsorption, entrapment, salt reactions

Loss of injectivity
Lack of control of in situ advance
High velocity shear (near wellbore), ageing, crosslinking, formation plugging
Often applied late in waterflood, making it largely
ineffective
mixing zone
drive
water
polymer slug
residual oil
water
oil
Polymer Flood
SMFA-ST 20071128
284
Polymer Flood -
FIELD
PERFORMANCE
Sanand Field, India
125
650
100
620
EOR OIL
75
590
50
560
25
530
0
1989
SMFA-ST 20071128
Projected
500
1991
1993
1995
285
Polymer Flood
FIELD
PROJECTS
Project
1 Taber Manville South
Flood Type Formation
Polymer Rec., %OIP
Secondary
Sandstone
PAA
2 Pembina
"
"
"
3 Wilmington
"
"
"
4 East Colinga
"
"
Biopolymer
5 Skull Creek South
"
"
PAA
6 Skull Creek Newcastle
"
"
"
10
7 Oerrel
"
"
"
23
8 Hankensbuettel
"
"
"
13
9 Owasco
"
"
"
10 Vernon
"
"
"
30
11 Northeast Hallsville
"
Carbonate
"
13
12 Hamm
"
Sandstone
"
13 Sage Spring Cr. Unit A
"
"
"
1.2
14 West Semlek
"
"
"
15 Stewart Ranch
"
"
"
16 Kummerfeld
"
"
"
17 Huntington Beach
"
"
"
18 North Stanley
Tertiary
"
"
1.1
19 Eliasville Caddo
Tertiary
Carbonate
"
1.8
20 North Burbank
Tertiary
Carbonate
"
2.5
SMFA-ST 20071128
286
CHEMISTRY OF
POLYACRYLAMIDE POLYMERS
Acrylic polymers are produced from acrylonitrile this is
prepared by the addition of hydrogen cyanide to acetylene in
the presence of cuprous chloride, cuprous cyanide and
ammonium chloride catalysts in an aqueous system:
HC=CH + HCN
CH2=CH-CN
Acrylonitrile may be hydrolyzed in the presence of acid the
result is either acrylamide or acrylic acid
CH2=CH-CN
Excess
H2O,acid
CH2=CH-C=O-NH2
H2O,acid
CH2=CH-CN
CH2=CH-C=O-OH
Several methods for making polyacrylamides from the above
monomers. The resulting structures are macromolecules.
SMFA-ST 20071128
287
CHEMISTRY OF POLYACRYLAMIDE POLYMERS -
Macromolecules consist of long hydrocarbon

chains with acid and amide groups randomly
attached to alternate carbon atoms along the
chain
-CH CH2-CH CH2 CH2 CH CH2 C=O
C=O
C=O
NH2
NH2
NH2
MW as high as 107 and acid-to-amide ratios
from 0 to 1 can be prepared.
SMFA-ST 20071128
288
SOLUTION IN WATER
Polymer molecule size depends on the COONa

groups along the chain, when dissolved in water
Electrical repulsion of like charges along the polymer
chain causes expansion of the molecule in an alkaline
solution
Size is also ionic strength of the polymer solution
Thus polymer size depends on
Molecular weight
Acid-amide ratio
Ionic strength (conc. of salts)
pH of solution
Influences viscosity and other physical properties
SMFA-ST 20071128
289
RESISTANCE FACTOR, RF
The flow rate of polymer is lower than the
flow rate of water, for the same conditions:
RF = kw/w kp/p =qw/qp
There is no permanent loss of permeability.
SMFA-ST 20071128
290
POLYMER SOLUTION VISCOSITY

Viscosity is given by
= K Ma
where
M = Avg MW
K = 3.73 x10-4
a = 0.66
Example: if = 9.5, M = 3.4x106
SMFA-ST 20071128
291
POLYACRYLAMIDE and
BIOPOLYMERS
Polyacrylamides
Temperature limit
Viscosity, cp
Avg. kair, md
Salinity, ppm
Potential problems
Degradation
SMFA-ST 20071128
<160 F
<100
>20
<3000
Shear
Salt sensitivity
Biopolymers
<160 F
<100
>20
<100 000
Bacterial
Plugging
292
POLYACRYLAMIDES
Good viscosity in fresh water, not compatible with high
salinity, esp. with high divalent cation conc. Ca, Mg, Fe
Residual permeability to water reduction both by adsorption
and mechanical entrapment
Shear degradation
Stable up to 160 F
Resistant to biodegradation
Products of different MW and ionic character available, such
as anionic, cationic, non-ionic
Cross-linkable with Cr+3 and Al+3 to obtain higher
permeability reduction
Generally used in field applications
Lower cost than Xanthan gum
SMFA-ST 20071128
293
BIOPOLYMERS
Good viscosity in fresh and high salinity
waters
No residual resistance effect
Stable up to 150 F
Tendency to biodegradation
Cross-linkable with Cr+3
Seldom used in field applications because of
plugging, and low stability also difficult to
control quality
SMFA-ST 20071128
294
LABORATORY TESTING
Polymer solution preparation with water: look for
cloudiness, precipitation; use several concentrations,
such as 500, 1000, 1500 ppm for mobility control,
higher for water shut-off
Viscosity measurement of solutions at different shear
rates and reservoir temperature they are nonNewtonian, pseudoplastic
Use a Brookfield LVT viscometer use a UL adaptor
for low viscosities
SMFA-ST 20071128
295
LABORATORY TESTING Core floods for injectivity and oil recovery, using reservoir
core plugs
Plot RF and RRF vs. cumulative volume injected to see
tendency for plugging
Adsorption obtained from core flow
Shear degradation can be determined by flowing the polymer
through a circulating pump several times, or through a
capillary at high rates
Stability at reservoir conditions can be tested by ageing the
polymer solution at reservoir conditions for several months
and then measuring viscosity
Core floods to determine oil recovery at different points in the
history of the flood
SMFA-ST 20071128
296
POLYMER SELECTION
Compatible with injection water and formation water
Provide optimum viscosity needed for mobility control with
the lowest polymer concentration
Minimum adsorption on reservoir rock
No injectivity problems
No shear degradation
Thermally, chemically and biologically stable at reservoir
conditions for long periods of times (several months)
Should enhance oil recovery
Should be easy to handle in field operations
Commercially available and cheap
For field applications, liquid polymers are preferred over dry
powders
SMFA-ST 20071128
297
RAPDAN FIELD,
SASKATCHEWAN
24 years waterflooding
760 acre polymer flood
12 producers, 7 injectors
M=2 to 4
Polymer flood area
1050 ppm Cyantrol 940 in

fresh water injected.
Oil production increased
from 396 B/D at 82% WC
1000
at 65% WC.
SPETo
89385
Wyatt,B/D
Pitts, Surkalo
SMFA-ST 20071128
298
Production performance
Predicted incremental oil
Recovery 14.9%
Laboratory radial core data
SPE 89385 Wyatt, Pitts, Surkalo

SMFA-ST 20071128
299
POLYMER FLOODING
Horizontal wells can improve injectivity
and reduce polymer degradation
Reduced sand-face velocity will reduce
mechanical degradation of polymer
Higher injection rates would also minimize
thermal and chemical degradation of
polymer and chemicals, because of lower
residence time
SMFA-ST 20071128
300
SURFACTANT FLOODING
drive
water
surfactant slug
water
oil
residual oil
SMFA-ST 20071128
301
SURFACTANT FLOODING
Variations
Surfactant-Polymer Flood (SP)
Low Tension Polymer Flood (LTPF)
Adsorption on rock surface

Slug dissipation due to dispersion
Slug dilution by water
Formation of emulsions
Treatment and disposal problems
mixing zone
drive
water
surfactant
slug
residual oil
SMFA-ST 20071128
Surfactant Flood
water
oil
302
Surfactant flood -
FIELD PROJECTS
Project
Pattern
Size
1 Benton
ILL
1 acre,
5 - spot
2 Salem Unit 5 acre

ILL
5 - spot
3 Big Muddy
WY
preflush,
surf. formulation
polymer buffer
preflush,
surf. formulation
polymer buffer
(Biopolymer)
10 - acre preflush,
5 - spot surf. formulation
x9
polymer buffer
4 Glenn Pool 92 acres

OK
SMFA-ST 20071128
Chemical Slugs
T. Rec. Comments
Type
PV % OIP
preflush,
surf. formulation
polymer buffer
1.4
4.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.18
0.1
0.7
10
14
10
32
Injection problems,
Emulsion production,
Poor sweep efficiency
Surf. Precipitation,
High surfactant loss,
Schedule change due
to delay in surf. Supply.
Faults and fractures,
Poor fluid confinement,
Pressure parting,
Poor sweep efficiency
Emulsion production,
Corrosion
Lack of mobility control,
Low oil prices made
expansion uneconomic.
303
Surfactant flood -
FIELD PERFORMANCE
Glenn Pool Field, OK
OIL
1,000
100
WOR
10
1984
SMFA-ST 20071128
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
304
SALINITY REQUIREMENT
DIAGRAM
(Nelson, SPE 8824, SPEJ April 1982)
Three types of phase environments defined: Type II(-), II(+), and

III
A chemical flood should keep as much of the surfactant as possible
in the Type III phase environment, as long as possible
Salinity requirement of a chemical flooding system changes as
surfactant concentration decreases due to adsorption and dispersion
The salinity requirement is the salinity required for the
surfactant/brine/oil system to be at mid-point salinity, i.e. at that
point in Type III where the concentration of oil equals the
concentration of brine in the microemulsion, middle phase
SMFA-ST 20071128
305
PHASE ENVIRONMENTS
Oil recovery was good with
lower salinity drives, as most
of the surfactant remained near
midpoint salinity in Type III
Oil recovery was poor with the

highest salinity drive. In the front
and rear mixing zones high
salinity shifted the surfactant from
Type III to Type II(+).
Nelson, SPE 8824, SPEJ April 1982

SMFA-ST 20071128
306
SALINITY REQUIREMENT DIAGRAM

Surfactant: 50%
Amoco MahagonyAA
+50% IPA
Brine: NaCl in water
Oil: decane
Midpoint
salinity band
Nelson, SPE 8824, SPEJ April 1982

SMFA-ST 20071128
307
FOAMING SURFACTANTS
Foaming surfactants used with steam for
two heavy oils, primarily to reduce steam
mobility in 1.2 d sand packs.
Isaacs,Jian,Green,McCarthy,Maunder AOSTRAJR,1988
SMFA-ST 20071128
308
IFT FOR TWO CHEMICALS
SMFA-ST 20071128
309
EFFECT OF OIL SATURATION

ON FOAM FORMATION
SMFA-ST 20071128
310
RESULTS
SMFA-ST 20071128
311
MAIN FINDINGS
Surfactant type was most important, with regard to
type of experiment
Foam could only form at oil saturations below 15%
Oil saturation is steam zone goes down only at very
low IFT
The surfactant may partition into the oil phase (loss)
it was high for one chemical and low for the other
Reduction in steam mobility led to a substantial
increase in oil recovery
SMFA-ST 20071128
312
ALKALINE FLOODING
drive
water
surfactant slug
water
oil
residual oil
SMFA-ST 20071128
313
ALKALINE FLOODING
Process depends on mixing of alkali and oil
Oil must have acid components
Emulsification of oil, drop entrainment and

entrapment occur
Effect on displacement and sweep efficiencies?
Polymer slugs used in some cases
mixing
Polymer alkali reactions must be accounted
for
zones
Complex process to design
low
drive
water
caustic IFT
zone
slug
water
oil
residual oil
SMFA-ST 20071128
Alkaline Flood
314
Alkaline flooding -
FIELD
PERFORMANCE
Field
Caustic Slug Caustic lb.Caustic Oil Satn. Caustic Oil Rec.

% PV Consump. %OIP
Size, % PV Conc. wt% per bbl PV
1 Whittier
8
0.2
0.06
51
2.4-11.2
4
2 Singleton
8
2.0
0.55
40
5
3 North Ward Estes
15
4.9
2.82
64
17.2
8
4 L. A. Basin
5
0.4
0.07
30
3
5 Orcutt Hill
2
0.42
0.03
50
0.5
2
12
0.14
0.06
25-35
0.6-1.2
3
6 Van
7 Kern River
48
0.15
0.24
52
1.3
none
8 Harrisburg
9
2.0
0.60
30-40
6
9 Brea-Olinda
1.2
0.12
0.005
50-60
2
SMFA-ST 20071128
315
ALKALINE-POLYMER
David Field, Alberta
FLOOD
1000
100
Oil Cut
100
10
10
Oil Rate
1
Waterflood
Alkaline-Polymer
Flood
Primary
1
0.1
1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004
SMFA-ST 20071128
316
EFFECT OF ALKALI ON IFT
SMFA-ST 20071128
317
EFFECT OF ALCOHOL ON IFT
SMFA-ST 20071128
318
DAVID POOL AP flood

Depth 2490 ft
Porosity 29%
Permeability 1400 md
Oil 34.1 cp, 22.6 API
Oil satn 75%
Water injection 0.25 PV
7 injectors, 18 producers on 20-acre
spacing
1%wt sodium carbonate + 800 ppm
Alcoflood 1175
0.213 PV sodium carbonate + 0.041 PV
Alcoflood + water
SMFA-ST 20071128
319

SMFA-ST 20071128
320
MICELLAR FLOODING
Micellar Flood
water
polymer
drive
water
oil
bank
micellar slug
SMFA-ST 20071128
oil
mixing zone
321
MICELLAR FLOODING
Chemical slugs are costly

Small well spacing required
High salinity, temperature and
clay
Considerable delay in response
Emulsion production
SMFA-ST 20071128
Micellar Flood
water
polymer
drive
water
Utilizes microemulsion and polymer

buffer slugs
Miscible-type displacement
Successful in banking and producing
residual oil
Process Limitations:
micellar
slug
oil
bank
oil
mixing zone
322
Micellar flood
TYPICAL
PERFORMANCE
Bradford Special Project No. 8
10
1,000
Oil Cut
1
100
Oil Rate
10
Dec. 81 Dec. 82
Dec. 83
Dec. 84
Dec. 85
0.1
micellar
injection
SMFA-ST 20071128
323
Micellar flood
PROCESS EFFICENCY
100
80
60
Henry S
40
Dedrick
Solid lines - Lab

Dots - Field
20
Wilkins
10
12
14
Micellar Slug Size, %PV

SMFA-ST 20071128
324
ASP AND MP FIELD PROJECTS

ASP Floods
Field
David, Alberta
West Kiehl, Wyoming
Gudong, China
Cambridge, Wyoming
Daqing, China
Karamay, China
Viraj, India
Date
Started
1986
1987
1992
1993
1994
1996
2002
Viscosity
cp
34
17
41.3
31
9
8.8
50
Res. T
C
31
57
68
56
37
23
81
Depth
Stage of
ft
Appln.
2490 Tertiary
6630
"
4173
"
7108
"
2670
"
2224
"
4265
"
Micellar Floods
Field
Dedrick (IL) Marathon
Robinson, 119-R (IL) Matathon
Benton (IL) Shell
Robinson, 219-R (IL) Marathon
North Burbank (OK) Phillips
Robinson, M1 (IL) Marathon
Bradford (PA) Penzoil, Marathon
Salem Unit (IL) Texaco
Louden (IL) EXXON
Louden (IL) EXXON
Chateaurenard, (France) IFP
Date
Started
1962
1968
1972
1974
1976
1977
1980
1981
1977
1980
1983
Viscosity
cp
11
6
3.5
6
3
6
5
3.6
5
5
40
Res. T
C
Depth
ft
22
35
22
49
22
20
27
26
26
30
1000
2100
1000
2900
1000
1860
1750
1460
1460
1970
Proj. Size,
Recovery
acre
%OIP
252
*21
106
34.4
766
29.4
72
*26.8
8.4
23.9
766
*24
68
*24
Stage of Proj. Size,

Recovery
Appln.
acre
%OIP
Secondary
2.5
*49.7
Tertiary
40
39
"
160
29
"
113
27
"
90
11
"
407
50
"
47
50
"
200
47
"
40
27
"
80
33
"
2.5
67
* Recovery as %OOIP
* %OOIP
SMFA-ST 20071128
325
LAB STUDIES: ASP
Thomas-Farouq Ali, JCPT, Feb 2001

SMFA-ST 20071128
326
LAB STUDIES: ASP
Alkali only
Surfactant-polymer only
Sand packs and Berea sdst cores, 5 cm dia, 61 cm long. Mitsue crude 5 cp
at 25 C. Alkali 3.75% sodium carbonate, surfactant 2.5% Petrostep B100,
500 and 1500 polyacrylamide solutions in 0.5% NaCl.
SMFA-ST 20071128
327
LAB STUDIES: ASP

RF 47%
RF 69%
ASP

SMFA-ST 20071128
Sloppy Slug
328
Effect of surfactant slug size
LAB STUDIES: ASP
5% surfactant slug: RF 38%
10% surfactant slug: RF 50%

SMFA-ST 20071128
329
LAB STUDIES: ASP
Effect of polymer conc:

500 ppm: RF 20%
1500 ppm: RF47%
Effect of porous medium: Berea sdst

Early bank breakthrough
Sand pack: later (Fig. 4)

SMFA-ST 20071128
330
LAB STUDIES: MICELLAR
Base run: 5% slug RF 62%
5% slug, but 1500 ppm buffer: RF 80%
5% slug plus alkaline pre-flush: RF 65%

SMFA-ST 20071128
331
LAB STUDIES: MICELLAR
ASP flood in a 3D model

using HWs: RF 43% (cf 50%
In base run).
Continuous injection of surfactant

And alkali: Final RF 75%

SMFA-ST 20071128
332
LAB STUDIES:
Observations
Recovery depends on the injection sequence ASP
and SAP to some extent
Polymer concentration is important, because of
increased mobility control
Alkali, surfactant and polymer mixed together
(Sloppy Slug) gave higher recovery than
separate slugs
Chemical consumption is ASP and micellar is
similar (10 lb/bbl)
Micellar floods gave higher recoveries than ASP
SMFA-ST 20071128
333
SCALE-UP METHODS FOR

MICELLAR FLOODING
Derivation of scaling groups or criteria for laboratory
experiments
Two approaches:
Inspectional analysis
Start with the complete mathematical formulation
Dimensional analysis
Start with stating all of the relevant variables (Given n variables and m
fundamental dimensions, there will be (n-m) dimensionless groups).
Both approaches were used and tested in controlled

laboratory core floods.
Thomas-Farouq Ali-Thomas, JCPT, Feb 2000
SMFA-ST 20071128
334
PREVIOUS WORK ON
SCALING
Saturations and concentrations will be similar for
same pore volumes injected
(Parsons and
Jones, SPE 5346, 1976)
Core dispersivity should be less than reservoir

dispersivity (Gash and Griffith, SPE 8828, 1980)
Non-equilibrium phenomena significant in lab
may be insignificant in the field
(Hirasaki, SPE
8841, 1980)
Critical core length is 2 ft, after which there is no

appreciable change in recovery
(Saleh and Graves,
SPE 25172, 1993)

SMFA-ST 20071128
335
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION

SMFA-ST 20071128
336
continued 0n next slide -
DEFINITIONS
65 Unknowns
64 Equations
SMFA-ST 20071128
337
DEFINITIONS
SMFA-ST 20071128
65 Unknowns
64 Equations
338
SCALING CRITERIA FROM

INSPECTIONAL ANALSIS
SMFA-ST 20071128
339
SCALING CRITERIA FROM

DIMENSIONAL ANALSIS
SMFA-ST 20071128
340
SIMPLIFIED GROUPS FOR

COREFLOODS

SMFA-ST 20071128
341
MODEL AND PROTOTYPE RUNS

Model: 1 inch dia, 1 ft long
Prototype: 2 inch dia, 2 ft long

SMFA-ST 20071128
342
EXAMPLES - 1

SMFA-ST 20071128
343
EXAMPLES - 2

SMFA-ST 20071128
344
EXAMPLES - 3

SMFA-ST 20071128
345
SPECIAL CASES
Miscible displacement
Waterflooding

SMFA-ST 20071128
346
MICELLAR FLOODING
Process Variation: MAP
Small micellar slug injected, followed by a
large alkaline/polymer slug
Shuler, Kuehne, Lerner SPE14934, 1989

SMFA-ST 20071128
347
COMPARISON OF
MP, AP, AND MAP FLOODS
Shuler, Kuehne, Lerner SPE14934, 1989

SMFA-ST 20071128
348
MICELLAR FLOOD IN
BRADFORD FIELD
Ondrusek, SPE 15550, 1988

SMFA-ST 20071128
349
OPERATIONAL DETAILS
Sulfonate and alcohol (cosurfactant) mixed on site to prepare the micellar slug
Shipped in stainless steel tanks, insulated and heated
Blending done at the field using an in-line mixing system that proportioned the
desired volumes of sulfonate and water
200-400 ppm citric acid added to make-up water to prevent iron precipitation in
make-up water
Sulfonate diluted, then heated to 100 F through a shell-and-tube heat exchanger
Heated slug was filtered through two 900 ft2 diatomaceous earth filters (0.8 m)
Cosurfactant metered into the filtered slug for stabilization and viscosity control
Straight-run gasoline was added to prevent wax precipitation during injection
Filtered slug was stored in two 400 bbl surge tanks
Slug distributed to Phase 1 and 2 through separate injection systems
Each header served 7 to 8 wells through an injection manifold, with separate well
well meters, cartridge filters, and pressure gauges
Injected slug reheated to 100 F before reaching the wellhead
Constant slug and polymer quality control
SMFA-ST 20071128
350
EMULSION PRODUCTION
SMFA-ST 20071128
351
RESULTS & PROBLEMS

Persistent injectivity problems, especially with polymer
Sulfonate production caused formation of reverse emulsions
Difficulty in balancing the injection volume among wells
Unequal response from producers
Total chemical injection was 35% PV

SMFA-ST 20071128
352
DEVELOPMENT
55 injectors
134 producers
Staggered line
drive 218 acres
Also five-spots

SMFA-ST 20071128
353
INJECTION HISTORY

SMFA-ST 20071128
354
PRODUCTION HISTORY

SMFA-ST 20071128
355
PRODUCTION HISTORY

SMFA-ST 20071128
356
MICELLAR FLOODING
Increased displacement efficiency when
faster rates are used in processes involving
low IFT
Capillary number correlations show that an
increase of one to orders of magnitudes is
required to recover 50% of the oil left after
a waterflood
SMFA-ST 20071128
357
ASP:
ALKALINE-SURFACTANT-POLYMER
water
drive
water
oil bank
alkali
Surf
polymer
oil
ASP Flood
SMFA-ST 20071128
358
ASP: ALKALI-SURFACTANTPOLYMER FLOODING

ASP
SAP
PAS
Sloppy Slug
polymer
Injected as
premixed slugs
or in sequence
oil bank
drive
water
alkali
Several variations:
Surf.
water
oil
ASP Flood
Field tests have been encouraging

Successful in banking and producing residual oil
Mechanisms not fully understood
SMFA-ST 20071128
359
ASP PILOT
Daqing,
China
100
Oil Rate
50
Oil Cut
20
10
1993
SMFA-ST 20071128
1994
1995
1996
360
CAMBRIDGE FIELD, WY
Depth 7108 ft
Oil 31 cp
Injection fluids:
30.7% PV of 1.25% wt sodium carbonate
0.1% Petrostep B-100
0.145% Alcoflood 1275
27.5% PV of polymer drive + water
Oil production increased from 37 B/D
to 1100 B/D in 1 year
RF 33.0% OOIP (primary+
waterflood 10%)
SMFA-ST 20071128
361

SMFA-ST 20071128
362
DAQING FIELD, CHINA

Tertiary ASP flood
Depth 2671 ft
Oil 11.5 cp, 35 API
Temp 45 C
4 inverted five-spots
4 injectors, 9 producers
22.2 acres
Porosity 26%, permeability 1400 md
Salinity 6800 ppm
Waterflood recovery 21.3% new wells
ASP oil prod increased 231 to 76 B/D

SMFA-ST 20071128
363

SMFA-ST 20071128
364
ASP vs. MICELLAR FLOOD

Lab Results Mitsue Oil Core Floods
M ice llar Flood
ASP Flood
100
Cumulative Recovery,% OIP; Oil Cut,%
100
Alkali = 5 % PV
Surfactant = 10 % PV
Polym er = 60 % PV
Oil Saturation = 37.6 % PV
90
80
Cum ulative oil

Recovery = 80.3 % OIP
Cum ulative oil

Recovery = 92.5 % OIP
90
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
Micellar Slug = 5 % PV
Polym er Buffer = 50 % PV
Oil Saturation = 32.5 % PV
Tertiary Recovery = 92.5% OIP
Oil Cut
Oil Cut
30
30
20
20
10
10
0.5
1.5
Pore Volumes Injected
2.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
Pore Volumes Injected
Earlier oil breakthrough and quicker recovery in micellar flood

SMFA-ST 20071128
365
USE OF HORIZONTAL WELLS TO INCREASE

DISPLACEMENT EFICIENCY OF EOR
PROCESSES
Higher rates are desirable for waterflooding and
EOR processes - but those processes where higher
rates give higher displacement efficiency should
especially benefit from horizontal wells
Additional benefits for three general types of EOR
methods: miscible, water-based chemical, and
thermal
SMFA-ST 20071128
366
NON-THERMAL METHODS, INCLUDING

CHEMICAL, FOR HEAVY OIL RECOVERY
SMFA-ST 20071128
367
LAB AND FIELD RECOVERY
SMFA-ST 20071128
368
INCREMENTAL RECOVERY
10.9
Over primary
9.1 Over primary

Over WF
5.7
Over WF
2.6
SMFA-ST 20071128
369
MAIN FINDINGS
Non-thermal methods: caustic, polymer,
carbon dioxide (subcritical) have been
partially successful for the recovery of
medium viscosity oils
Laboratory floods often unreliable because
they are not scaled
Other recovery methods have been
unsuccessful, or marginally successful
SMFA-ST 20071128
370
IMMISCIBLE CO2 WAG

(WATER ALTERNATING GAS)
PROCESS
CO2
SEVERAL VARIATIONS
drive
water
oil
Continuous CO2 injection
bank
CO2 slug followed by gas drive
CO2 slug followed by a waterflood
Alternating CO2-water slugs, followed by a
waterflood
water
oil
The amount of CO2 needed

is small: ~20% pore vol.
SMFA-ST 20071128
371
HEAVY OIL DISPLACEMENT

MECHANISMS FOR CO2WATER
Viscosity reduction
Swelling
IFT reduction (emulsion formation)
Carbon dioxide expansion (blowdown)
Mobility control by water
SMFA-ST 20071128
372
Temperature, F
100
100,000
200
150
300
250
Live oil
Temp.
CO2
Dead oil
10,000
Oil Viscosity, cp
VISCOSITY CHANGE WITH CO2

SOLUTION vs. TEMPERATURE CHANGE
SMFA-ST 20071128
Viscosity vs. T and CO2 Pressure
1,000
CO2
100
CO2
10
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
CO2 Saturation Pressure, psig
700
800
373
IMPORTANT VARIABLES
SMFA-ST 20071128
Temperature, F
100
100,000
200
150
300
250
Live oil
Temp.
CO2
Dead oil
10,000
O il V isco sity, cp
WAG ratio
Injection rate
Oil viscosity, oil
saturation
Slug size of carbon
dioxide
Gas saturation
Formation heterogeneities
Pressure
Temperature
Foam for mobility control
Nitrogen/propane in place
of CO2
Viscosity vs. T and CO2 Pressure
1,000
CO2
100
CO2
10
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
CO2 Saturation Pressure, psig
374
VAPEX
In the simplest form, the non-thermal
counterpart of SAGD
The solvent chamber forms through solvent

diffusion much slower than heat diffusion
Solvent does not reduce the bitumen/heavy
oil viscosity to the same extent as heat
Solvent is expensive and must be recycled
SMFA-ST 20071128
375
Viscosity of butane-bitumen
mixtures
(Courtsey Das, 1995)
SMFA-ST 20071128
376
Viscosity of CO2-bitumen
mixtures
(Courtsey Jacobs, Donnelly, Stanislav, Svrcek, JCPT, Oct-Dec, 1990)
SMFA-ST 20071128
377
DIFFUSIVITY
Diffusivity in the presence of fractures

4x10-2 m2/sec
Ratio: 80,000,00
Diffusivity of a flow system

4x10-4 m2/sec
800,000
Thermal Diffusivity
7x10-7 m2/sec
1,400
Diffusivity of a miscible system

5x10-10 m2/sec
SMFA-ST 20071128
1
378
Diffusion of propane into

bitumen
(Courtsey Boustani and Maini, JCPT, April, 2001)
SMFA-ST 20071128
379
IMPROVED CHEMICALS
Candidate reservoirs often have :
High temperature
High salinity
High water saturations
Low permeability
Clay content >5%
Need chemicals suitable for above conditions
Polymers stable above 80 C and at high salinity

Polymers with high RF
Surfactant with low adsorption, tolerant of clay
Inexpensive chemicals coupling surfactant and polymer
properties
SMFA-ST 20071128
380
EOR SCREENING CRITERIA

Most important: geology and mineralogy
Oil viscosity < 35 cp

Oil API gravity > 30 API
Permeability 100 md
Porosity
15%
Temperature < 150 F
Depth
< 9,000 ft
Pressure not critical
Oil saturation 45%
Oil in place at process
start 600 Bbl/acre-ft
SMFA-ST 20071128
Formation sdst preferred

Thickness
20-30 ft
Stratification desirable
Clay content
< 5%
Salinity < 20,000 ppm
Hardness
< 500 ppm
Oil composition
Light,
intermediates & organic
acids desirable
No bottom water or gas
cap
381
HOW TO PLAN A FLOOD

Choose a process likely to succeed in a
candidate reservoir
Determine the reasons for success or
failure of past projects of the process
Research to fill in the blanks
Determine process mechanisms
Derive necessary scaling criteria
Carry out lab studies
Field based research

Establish chemical supply
Financial incentives essential
SMFA-ST 20071128
382
INTERPRETATION OF
RESULTS
Large number of chemical floods with
little technical success
Field tests implemented for tax
advantage misrepresent process
performance
Questionable interpretations distort the
process potential
SMFA-ST 20071128
383
COST OF CHEMICALS
As the oil prices rise, so does the cost of chemicals,
but not in the same proportion
Typical Costs:
Polymer - $3/lb
Surfactant
Crude oil
Caustic
Isopropanol
Micellar slug
- $1.20/lb
- $60/bbl
- $0.60/lb
- $20/gallon
- $25/bbl
Process Efficiency: volume of oil recovered per unit

volume (or mass) of chemical slug injected
SMFA-ST 20071128
384
THE CASE FOR

CHEMICAL FLOODING
Escalating energy demand, declining reserves
Two trillion bbl oil remaining, mostly in depleted
reservoirs or those nearing depletion
Infill drilling often meets the well spacing required
Fewer candidate reservoirs for CO2 and miscible
Opportunities exist under current economic conditions
Improved technical knowledge, better risk assessment
and implementation techniques
SMFA-ST 20071128
385
HEAVY OIL RECOVERY
SMFA-ST 20071128
386
Heavy Oil and Tar Sands:

Definitions
ions
condit
r
i
o
v
r
e
s
e
r
t
a
Mobile
According to UNITAR Heavy Oil gravity is >10API

Viscosity at reservoir conds. is <10,000 cp
ns
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c
r
i
o
v
reser
t
a
e
l
i
b
o
m
m
I
Tar Sand gravity is <10API

Viscosity at reservoir conds. is >10,000 cp
Rather arbitrary definitions: problems
SMFA-ST 20071128
387
TYPICAL HEAVY OIL PROPERTIES
API gravity 8-20

Viscosity
100 to several million cp
High sulphur >3% by wt
High asphaltenes 10-20% by wt
Metals
100-2000 mg/l (ppm)
Occurs usually in high permeability sands
Usually shallow
<500 m depth
High hydrocarbon saturation 60-80%
SMFA-ST 20071128
388
PROBLEMS IN HEAVY OIL

io n
t
a
u
q
E
s
PRODUCTION DarcyA kp/L
q=
High oil viscosity

low mobility
Lack of initial communication between
injection and production wells (low
injectivity, because oil mobility is low and
water is usually immobile)
Shallow depths
insufficient overburden
to permit the use of high pressures
SMFA-ST 20071128
389
HEAVY OIL PRODUCTION

Canada (Over 50% of total oil production is heavy oil)
Surface mining 3 large plants ~ 0.9 million B/D
3 large plants under construction
In situ 2 large CSS operations ~200,000 B/D
6 large SAGD projects 100,000 B/D
U.S.A.
Steamflooding (California)
~300,000 B/D
Venezuela
Cyclic steaming
Primary
SMFA-ST 20071128
~350,000 B/D
~200,000 B/D
390
SYNCRUDE MILDRED LAKE
Surface mining of tar sand near Fort McMurray, Alberta.

SMFA-ST 20071128
391
DRAGLINE
SMFA-ST 20071128
392
VISCOSITY-TEMPERATURE
BEHAVIOUR
OF
HEAVY
OILS
e
r
tu
ra
e
p
m
e
t
r
i
o
v
r
e
R es
Athabasca bitumen
T, F Viscosity, cp
80
550,000
400
12
Canadian heavy oil

T, F Viscosity, cp
80
1,260
400
Need only ~200C temperature to mobilize oil

(From Buckles, 1981)
SMFA-ST 20071128
393
GENERAL DESIGN OF
THERMAL PROJECTS
TOTAL TIME COULD APPROACH 20 YEARS
Site selection
Geology
Process selection
Lab testing and
physical models
Numerical simulation
Pattern size and type
Pilot design/operation
SMFA-ST 20071128
Observation/sampling
wells
Post-project coring
Pilot evaluation
Prototype design
Operation
Decision for
commercial project
394
VISCOSITY REDUCTION IS
KEY TO OIL PRODUCTION
Methods of reducing oil viscosity
increase temperature
mix a solvent with heavy oil
Darcys Equation
Akp
q=
L
gas, such as propane, carbon dioxide

liquid, such as an aromatic naphtha
emulsify heavy oil as a water-external

emulsion, so that the viscosity is close to that
of the aqueous phase
SMFA-ST 20071128
395
SMFA-ST 20071128
396
VISCOSITY EQUATIONS
Dynamic viscosity
Kinematic viscosity
SMFA-ST 20071128
397
CRAGOES METHOD
for the viscosity of a liquid mixture ( in poise)
Example:
Viscosity of a mixture of 60% Athabasca bitumen of viscosity
SMFA-ST 20071128106 cp and 40% naphtha of viscosity 0.6 cp is 35 cp.
398
IMPORTANT THERMAL
PROPERTIES OF ROCKS
ed up
heat is us
Formation heat capacity, Ms
e
75% of th ck matrix
e ro
to heat th
Heat required to heat one m3 rock by 1C

For a typical rock, with 60% oil saturation and 30%
porosity, M=2500 kJ/m3-C, out of which ~75% goes to heat
the rock matrix
Thermal conductivity, kh Dependence on S, , T
Heat transferred, in one second, per m2 over a 1 m distance
for a 1C temperature difference (~2x10-3kW/m-C)
Thermal diffusivity, = heat flow/heat storage

Thermal conductivity/Heat capacity (~1.0x10-6 m2/s)
SMFA-ST 20071128 Low
rock thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity are very desirable
399
STEAM: Best heat carrier

Highest enthalpy of liquid (sensible heat)
Highest enthalpy of vaporization (latent heat)
1 kiloton nuclear detonation releases
0.45x1010 kJ = heat injected in about 20 days
of steam injection
Properties are obtained from steam tables or
mathematical equations
SMFA-ST 20071128
400
DEVELOPMENT OF STEAM
PROPERTIES
Heating 1 kg water at 0 C an pressure ps
Superheated Steam
Vertical scale representation, incl. TR
SMFA-ST 20071128
401
IMPORTANT PROPERTIES OF
STEAM
Temperature increases as pressure increases

Sensible heat increases as pressure increases
Latent heat decreases as pressure increases
Volume of liquid or vapour decreases as
pressure increases
An important concept is steam quality (fst), the
mass of vapour per unit mass of vapour+liquid
SMFA-ST 20071128
402
STEAM TEMPERATURE, LATENT

HEAT AND SENSIBLE HEAT
VARIATION WITH TEMPERATURE
400
2500
350
2000
Enthalpy, kJ/kg
Temperature, C
300
250
200
150
100
hw
Lv
1500
1000
500
50
0
0
10
15
Pressure, MPa
SMFA-ST 20071128
20
25
10
15
20
25
Pressure, MPa
403
Low pressures desirable for steam injection

2500
Enthalpy, kJ/kg
2000
hw
Lv
1500
1000
500
0
0
300 psia 5
10
1500 psia
15
P re ssu re , M P a
SMFA-ST 20071128
20
25
3208 psia
404
STEAM PROPERTIES
Simple equations also high accuracy polynomials.

Tortike and Farouq Ali, SPERE, 1993.
SMFA-ST 20071128
405
STEAM CALCULATIONS
Heat injection rate
Downhole steam-water volume
Steam-gas mixtures
Final temperature and quality in a steam
zone in cyclic
SMFA-ST 20071128
406
ENTHALPY OF
STEAM AND HOT WATER
At commonly used pressures Enthalpy of 85% quality steam is 2.5 times
that of hot water at the same pressure and
temperature
Volume of steam is ~50 times that of hot
water per unit mass
Temperature and pressure of steam can be
decoupled if a noncondensable gas is added
SMFA-ST 20071128
407
PRINCIPLES OF OIL
DISPLACEMENT
Mobility Ratio, M
defined as the ratio of the mobility of displacing to
the mobility of displaced liquid
Various processes rely
M for steam
defined as v/, where
on altering M, or Nc, or
both through temperature
changes, emulsification, etc.
= displacing fluid viscosity, poise

v = Darcy velocity, cm/sec
= interfacial tension, dyne/cm
SMFA-ST 20071128
408
DARCYS EQUATION
Linear flow
Gravity flow
SMFA-ST 20071128
Ak h k ro p
qo =
o
L
qo =
Ak v k ro
o g
409
FACTORS AFFECTING EOR

Mobility Ratio, M
Defined as the ratio of the mobilities of the
displacing and displaced fluids
ing ( krw / w ) krw o k p
=
=
=
M=
ed ( kro /o ) kro w L
Defined as the ratio of viscous to capillary forces
Nc =
SMFA-ST 20071128
k p
L
v = Darcy velocity, m/s

= displacing fluid viscosity, Pa.s
= interfacial tension, N/m
L = length, m
410
MOBILITY RATIO, M
water
oil
M 1 favourable
Good displacement efficiency
Better sweep efficiency and conformance
Achievable by adjusting displacing fluid
viscosity
water
oil
M > 1 unfavourable
Poor displacement efficiency
Leads to viscous instabilities
SMFA-ST 20071128
411
EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO

1
1 PV Inj
2 PV Inj
3 PV Inj
Displaceable Oil, PV
0.9
0.8
3 PV
0.7
0.6
2 PV
0.5
1 PV
0.4
0.3
0.2
1
10
100
1000
Mobility Ratio, M
SMFA-ST 20071128
412
Nc =
CAPILLARY NUMBER, Nc
Residual oil retained as small globules
Sand
grains
oil
Nc 10-6 to 10-8
Mobilized by increasing Nc
Increase displacing fluid viscosity
Increase injection velocity
v
Nc =
Decrease IFT (most effective)

SMFA-ST 20071128
413
EFFECT OF
CAPILLARY NUMBER
To recover one-half of the oil remaining
at the end of a waterflood, Nc must be
increased by 1000 to 10,000 times
The only way to

increase Nc is to
decrease by
use of a
surfactant, or
better, by an
increasing the
temperature
SMFA-ST 20071128
Nc = v/
414
Overview of heavy oil

recovery methods:
Thermal and Non-Thermal
SMFA-ST 20071128
415
HEAVY OIL RECOVERY

METHODS - Non-Thermal
Waterflooding Relatively ineffective, but economical
RF 1-2%
Polymer flooding No better than waterflooding, and costly
RF 0% Surfactant flooding Adsorption limits effectiveness
RF 0% Alkaline floods Rapid adsorption, other problems
Emulsion floods Injectivity is a problem, also cost
RF 10-15%
Immiscible CO2 WAG flooding process Good
Solvent flooding Slow mixing with oil, also high cost
Cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS)
Combinations Generally costly, ineffective
RF 3-5%
SMFA-ST 20071128
416
HEAVY OIL RECOVERY

METHODS -Thermal
Steamflooding
Recovery Factor 50-60%
Variations, such as hot waterflooding, SAGD, SAGOGD
Cyclic Steam Stimulation
Non-frac
Under frac pressures
In Situ Combustion

Severe problems
Forward or reverse; wet or dry

High pressure air injection
Electrical Heating
SMFA-ST 20071128
Largely Experimental
417
THERMAL METHODS
Cyclic steam stimulation
Highly successful commercially: quick payout.
Low recovery. Single well process at first.
Steamflooding
High recovery: 50-60% oil in place. Less
profitable. Could be second stage of cyclic.
In Situ Combustion
Many operating problems. Successful under
some conditions. Complex, people-intensive.
Electrical Heating
SMFA-ST 20071128
418
Reservoir heating by
steam, hot water, and
in situ combustion
SMFA-ST 20071128
419
CONDUCTION HEATING
Slow, but field areas are large, times are
large
Occurs in all thermal recovery processes
Effective for heating the matrix in fractured
formations
Several field projects are based on
conduction heating as the main process for
mobilizing oil, e.g. Shells Peace River
Project
SMFA-ST 20071128
420
EXAMPLES OF CONDUCTION
HEATING
SMFA-ST 20071128
421
CONDUCTION HEATING
Calculation of temperature
Time to heat a fracture block
Locating a hot/steam front
SMFA-ST 20071128
422
LINEAR & RADIAL CONDUCTION
SMFA-ST 20071128
423
Marx-Langenheim theory, its

limitations and extensions;
applications
SMFA-ST 20071128
424
FORMATION HEATING BY HOT

WATER AND STEAM INJECTION
Heat content of hot water is about 40% that of
85% steam (total heat ~2500 kJ/kg)
Hot water supplies heat through a drop in
temperature, whereas steam supplies heat through
a drop in steam quality, but the temperature
remains constant
Steam creates a constant temperature region
(steam zone), whereas hot water produces a
steady temperature variation in the formation
SMFA-ST 20071128
425
TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION IN
HOT WATER AND STEAM
INJECTION
SMFA-ST 20071128
426
SIMPLE RESERVOIR HEATING EXAMPLE

4.17 hectare pattern, 20 m thick, temperature 40 C
bulk volume = 4.17x104x20 = 833,333 m3
Porosity 30%, oil saturation So 70%; reservoir temperature 50 C
steamflood residual, Sorst 15%; rock heat capacity 2400 kJ/m3-C
Steam injection rate: 100 m3/day (as water), at 4 MPa, 80% quality;
Steam temperature from tables: 250.3 C; enthalpy ~ 2500 kJ/kg
Inject steam for 5 years: (assume 40% heat loss)
Total heat injected = 100x1000kg/m3x2500x5x365x60%=2.74x1011 kJ
Volume of rock heated=2.74x1011/[2400x(250.3-50)]=569,978 m3
(That is, 569,978/833,333 = 68% of the rock is heated to steam temperature)
Oil recovered = vol heated x porosity x (So Sorst)
= 569,978x0.30x(0.70-0.15) = 94,046 m3 = 591,552 bbl
Steam-oil ratio = 100x5x365/94,046 = 182,500/94,046 = 1.94 m3/m3
Cost of steam = $25/m3x182,500 = $4.56 million
Value of oil = $30/bblx591,522 = $17.7 million
SMFA-ST 20071128
427
FORMATION HEATING BY
STEAM INJECTION:
Marx-Langenheim Equation
Single most important concept in thermal
recovery
Based on a heat balance
Heat injection rate=Heat loss rate+Heat accumulation rate
Steam zone volume can be calculated for a

given time and steam injection, rate, pressure
and quality
Or, the time for a desired steam zone volume
can be calculated
SMFA-ST 20071128
428
FORMATION HEATING BY
STEAM INJECTION:
SMFA-ST 20071128
429
STEPS IN DERIVATION
Heat balance
Heat loss
Heat accumulation
SMFA-ST 20071128
430
SMFA-ST 20071128
431
Applications & Limitations

Given t, the steam zone volume at that time can be
calculated
Given a desired steam zone volume, the time to
attain it can be calculated
The equation assumes that all of the injected heat
is retained in the steam zone at steam temperature
thus it gives larger than the correct steam zone
volume for low steam qualities
No allowance for steam quality, so gives same
steam zone volume, even if quality is zero, for
same heat injection rate
SMFA-ST 20071128
432
CONCEPT OF CRITICAL TIME

Why critical time?
Critical time depends on fst, Lv, ps, and h
SMFA-ST 20071128
433
Mandl-Volek Equation
SMFA-ST 20071128
434
Table of [et .erfc t +2(t /)-1] and et .erfc t

D
SMFA-ST 20071128
435
LAUWERIERS EQUATION
for hot fluid injection (no Lv)
SMFA-ST 20071128
436
LAUWERIERS SOLUTION
Temperature propagates to great distance at low level
SMFA-ST 20071128
437
HEAT LOSS TO ADJACENT

FORMATIONS (Steam or hot water)
Limits steam injection into thick formations >30 ft (10 m)
1.5 m
3m
16 m
30 m
150 m
SMFA-ST 20071128
438
Steamflooding:
general concepts and field
experience
SMFA-ST 20071128
439
STEAM INJECTION SYSTEM
SMFA-ST 20071128
440
STEAMFLOOD SCHEMATIC
SMFA-ST 20071128
441
STEAMFLOODING
Pattern drive: choose suitable well pattern size is critical; not too large, not too small!
Oil recovery 50-60% in California, 5-8 years
Usually after cyclic steaming
Mechanism: gravity override of steam occurs.
Steam zone forms. Oil saturation in the
steam zone is very small: ~10% pore volume
Other effects
SMFA-ST 20071128
442
STEAMFLOODING
Patterns
Mechanisms
Steam distillation example
Gravity flow vs. drive

Vertical sweep
van Lookeren and Neuman
Steam rate after breakthrough

Cost of steam
SMFA-ST 20071128
443
STEAM GENERATORS
Single-pass system, gas-fired

50 million Btu/hr (15 MW) units, also larger
Pressure ratings of 1500 and 2500 psi
Water treatment is most important aspect of
generator operation
Cost of operation can be >$ 6000 per day for a 50
million unit; increasingly, cogeneration is being
used to cut cost
Steam cost depends on fuel cost $ 3 to 4/barrel
SMFA-ST 20071128
444
TYPICAL OILFIELD
STEAM GENERATOR
SMFA-ST 20071128
445
STEAMFLOOD EXPERIENCE
Highly successful in California; current
production is ~300,000 B/D, at an steam-oil
ratio of 4.0+, recovery factor 50-60%
Also successful floods in Canada: Aberfeldy
and Pikes Peak in Saskatchewan
Not successful in oil sands areas, because of
very high oil viscosities: 105 to 106 cp
Current trend is to make steamfloods selfsufficient
SMFA-ST 20071128
446
STEAMFLOODING - SPECIAL CASES
Steamflooding
Marginal reservoirs (thin formations,
bottom water, gas cap, fractured, etc.)
Light oil reservoirs
n
e
t
f
o
,
With horizontal wells
k
is
r
l
h
a
t
g
i
n
e
H
m
With additives
i
er
p
x
e
Before in situ combustion
SMFA-ST 20071128
447
STEAMFLOOD ADDITIVES
GASEOUS
Natural gas
Carbon dioxide
Flue gas
Air
Other
FOAM
LIQUIDS
Solvents
Caustic
Surfactants
Chemicals
SOLIDS
Polymers
Bentonite
SMFA-ST 20071128
448
MATURE STEAMFLOODS
What to do after steamflooding becomes
uneconomic? Several choices:
Inject cold water
Inject produced hot water
Inject slugs of water and high quality steam
Inject low quality steam
Shut in injection, continue production
SMFA-ST 20071128
449
STEAM-OIL RATIO: SOR

Limiting SOR (when all the produced oil is used as fuel) = 14
Defined as the volume of steam injected as

water per unit volume of oil recovered
Cyclic steam stimulation
SOR is 1 to 2 in Calif , 2 to 5 in Alberta, and
0.3 in Venezuela
Steamflooding
SOR is >4 in Alberta, Calif. and Indonesia
SMFA-ST 20071128
450
STEAMFLOOD PRACTICE
Steam is injected near the base, until
breakthrough occurs
Steam rate is reduced, and a downward drive
is induced; infill wells may be drilled
When steam injection becomes uneconomic,
the process is converted to a hot waterflood,
low quality steamflood, etc.
SMFA-ST 20071128
451
STEAMFLOOD PREDICTION
Methods based on analytical models
Jones
Gomaa
Farouq Ali
etc.
Numerical simulation
Physical laboratory models
SMFA-ST 20071128
452
PIKES PEAK
CYCLIC/STEAMFLOOD
Remarkable success, because of good
engineering:
cyclic steaming, followed by steamflooding
Now reaching maturity new ways of using

steam are needed, even other methods
Best of Waseca channel: 6.56x106 m3 oil
SOR 2.72, Recovery to 70%
F.Y.F. Wong, D.B. Anderson, J.C. ORourke, H.Q. Rea, and K.A. Scheidt, SPE 71630, 2001.
SMFA-ST 20071128
453
TANGLEFLAGS
Excellent example of using steam under
adverse reservoir conditions
Depth, ft
1475
Avg. thickness, ft
89
Oil viscosity, cp
13,000
Reservoir temperature, F
66
Porosity, %
33
Permeability, md
~4000
Oil saturation, %
50
Initial pressure, psig
591
Solution gas oil ratio, scf/STB 62
SMFA-ST 20071128
454
TANGLEFLAGS - cont.
First horizontal well, steam zones at
different times
P.J. Jespersen and T.J.C. Fontaine, JCPT, May 1993.

SMFA-ST 20071128
455
KERN RIVER
California
9300 acres, 1000 ft deep

6900 producers, 1400 injectors
Five-spot, nine-spot, and cyclic
Production 100,000 B/D
Porosity 31%, permeability 4 darcies
Oil viscosity 1000-4000 cp @ 90 F
High WOR, SOR, project mature
Second steamflood in some patterns
New ideas being tested for operating mature
steamfloods
SMFA-ST 20071128
456
DURI STEAMFLOOD
Indonesia
60,000 acres, 350-550 ft deep

1600 injectors, 3700 producers
five-spot and nine-spot patterns
Total production 240,000 B/D
Porosity 36%, permeability 1600 md
Oil viscosity 350 cp @100 F
Favorable economics because of shallow depth,
not-too-viscous oil
Currently, high WOR, mature steam areas
SMFA-ST 20071128
457
HOT WATERFLOODING
Process is basically unstable, but may provide
sufficient sweep in a thin formation
Applicable under certain conditions, e.g.
initial low level thermal stimulation

deep formations
fresh water sensitive clays
old or non-thermal wells
Recovery 10-15%; could be higher

SMFA-ST 20071128
458
Cyclic steam stimulation:

general concepts,
reservoir drives
SMFA-ST 20071128
459
CYCLIC STEAM
STIMULATION
Most successful recovery method: quick
payout, but relatively low recovery factor
Initially a single well process
Complex to operate after communication
develops among wells
Frac (in Alberta: CSS) and non-frac versions
Successful in many types of reservoirs
SMFA-ST 20071128
460
CYCLIC STEAM
STIMULATION
Basic Process
Consists of
Steam injection for several weeks

Shut-in for one to two weeks
Production for 3 to 12 months
Repeat the above three steps for any number of cycles
Operation and response depend on the reservoir

conditions and oil properties
SOR varies from 2 to 5 in Alberta to 1 to 2 in
Calif., to as low as 0.3 in Venezuela
SMFA-ST 20071128
461
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
California
Venezuela
Cold Lake, Alberta
SMFA-ST 20071128
462
CYCLIC STEAM STIMULATION

RESPONSE
SMFA-ST 20071128
463
IMPORTANT PARAMETERS
CDOR = calendar day oil rate

SOR = steam-oil ratio
DI = depletion index
Changes in permeability (via Hall plot)
Cumulative water retention
Changes in relative permeabilities from
cycle to cycle
SMFA-ST 20071128
464

Mechanisms
Oil viscosity in the steam zone is reduced to
a very low value, and the highly mobilized
oil is driven into the wellbore by
reservoir pressure (Boberg-Lantz Method and
Albornoz-Farouq Ali)
gravity (Towson-Boberg Method)
rock-fluid expansion (de Haan-van Lookeren)
compaction
solution gas drive
flash steam drive
SMFA-ST 20071128
465
MECHANISMS
Radial flow case
Steam flashing
Gravity flow in a non-isothermal field
SMFA-ST 20071128
466
CYCLIC STEAM
STIMULATION
Reservoir Selection
Applicable in case of very viscous oils, oil/tar
sands, and fractured formations, where
communication between injectors and producers is
T
N
difficult to obtain
A
T
R
O
P
In the case of less viscous oils (a
few
thousand
M
I
T
S
Osteamflood development
cp), it is the first stage
in
M
S
I
Y
Best performance
in thick, shallow reservoirs,
G
O
L
O
E vertical permeability, high oil saturation, and
Ghigh
no bottom water or gas cap
SMFA-ST 20071128
467

Operation in California (~103 cp oil)
Inject steam over a limited interval, starting at the
base of the formation
In subsequent cycles inject in intervals higher up,
until formation top is reached
If still economical, inject from the base of the
formation
Many cycles can be carried out, depending on
economics and communication among wells,
which may require special methods, such as
sequential steaming, etc.
SMFA-ST 20071128
468
STEAM INJECTION PROFILE

Depends on geology, tubing position, liquid
in the wellbore, and other factors
SMFA-ST 20071128
469
Cyclic steam stimulation field

experience in Canada, California,
Venezuela; follow-up processes
SMFA-ST 20071128
470
AREAS OF ACTIVITY
Lloydminster area
BOTH:
Cold Lake
Channel sands
Athabasca
Complex geology
Wabasca
Often water/gas
Peace River
Heavy oil reservoirs in Alberta
Grosmont
SMFA-ST 20071128
471
ALBERTA OIL SANDS AND

LOCATIONS OF MAJOR PROJECTS
Major deposits shown in green

SMFA-ST 20071128
472
LLOYDMINSTER RESERVOIRS
1
o
t
5
m
n
o
lli
i
b
0
SMFA-ST 20071128
473
Past Experience
Non-Thermal UNSUCCESSFUL
Waterflooding ECONOMICAL,LOW
RECOVERY
Polymer floods
L
U
Surfactant floods
F
S
S
Caustic floods
E
C
C
Other
SU
UN
Adams, M.:
SMFA-ST 20071128
474
Past Experience (cont.)

Thermal In situ combustion
Large scale combustion projects in Golden
Lake Sparky
Battrum fireflood
Waseca oxygen enriched combustion project ssful
ce
c
Tangleflags fireflood
su
ly
d
l
i
m
Other
r
,
d
e
il
a
F
SMFA-ST 20071128
475
Current Status
Successful processes
Cyclic steaming and steamflooding in Pikes Y

G
Peak
O
L
O
Modified steam process in Tangleflags
E
G
:
Limited experimentation with
SAGD and its
s
s
e
variations
c
c
u
s
Other
SMFA-ST 20071128
o
t
y
e
K
476
Past Experience (cont.)

Thermal Steam Injection
Wellbore heaters
Cyclic steam stimulation ~20 cycles
Steamfloods
Blackfoot, Kitscotty, Aberfeldy, etc.
Pikes Peak
Single well SAGD

SMFA-ST 20071128
477
CSS IN COLD LAKE
SMFA-ST 20071128
478
RESERVOIRS AMENABLE
TO OIL RECOVERY
Towson and Kendall Papers (JCPT,1978)
Shows that only 1 in 5 Cold Lake reservoirs are
suitable for commercial application of oil recovery
methods, notably steam
Others: too thin, bottom water, mobile water, gas, low
perm, etc.
This has changed today we are adapting steam to
some of the most unfavourable formations.
SMFA-ST 20071128
479
CSS - CYCLIC STEAM

STIMULATION
Cold Lake Clearwater: 100,000 cp (13C)
5 cp (260C)
How to deliver the heat?

20 years of field experiments, with Basically different processes
Ideas about mechanisms
Operating conditions, incl. Spacing
E.S. Denbina, T.C. Boberg, M.B. Rotter, SPE 16737, SPERE, May 1991.
E. Vittoratos, G.R. Scott, C.I. Beattie, SPE 17422, SPERE, Feb. 1990.
SMFA-ST 20071128
480
COLD LAKE PRODUCTION
SMFA-ST 20071128
481
DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLD

LAKE PROJECT
Slow process, requiring experimentation and careful engineering.
SMFA-ST 20071128
482
CSS - CYCLIC STEAM STIMULATION cont.
Current production 150,000 B/D

Remarkable variation of non-frac cyclic
steaming
Steam injection above parting pressures 815 MPa, wells are linked by fractures
Process is like a steamflood across the
reservoir
E.S. Denbina, T.C. Boberg, M.B. Rotter, SPE 16737, SPERE, May 1991.
E. Vittoratos, G.R. Scott, C.I. Beattie, SPE 17422, SPERE, Feb. 1990.
SMFA-ST 20071128
483
DIRECTIONAL DRILLING
FROM PADS
SMFA-ST 20071128
484
MEGAROW STEAMING
N
s
w
s
w
SMFA-ST 20071128
soaking
waiting
485
SMFA-ST 20071128
486
SMFA-ST 20071128
487
ONE OF THE STEAM

GENERATION PLANTS
SMFA-ST 20071128
488
COGENERATION PLANT
170 MW
SMFA-ST 20071128
489
4-D SEISMIC IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF CSS
SMFA-ST 20071128
490
Cycle 1
Cycle 3
(Smith, 2002)
SMFA-ST 20071128
491
PEACE RIVER
Oil viscosity 200,000 cp
Many processes tested:
Cyclic steaming
In situ combustion
Modified steamflood
SAGD
Cyclic utilizing laterals
Still no clear recovery process

L.M. Goobie and H.L. Chang, Unconvential Hydrocarbon Sources, St. Petersburg, Oct. 1992.
SMFA-ST 20071128
492
In situ combustion:
brief introduction
SMFA-ST 20071128
493
IN SITU COMBUSTION
Some of in place oil is oxidized to generate heat

High reduction in oil viscosity
High thermal efficiency
Variations: Forward or Reverse, High Pressure air Injection
Wet or Dry, with Additives
Lower AOR in Wet Combustion
RF = 25 -50%
Forward Combustion
Air
CombustIon
Zone
Steam
Zone
Hot Sand
Gas
Water
Oil
Bank
Oil consumed
as fuel
SMFA-ST 20071128
Oil
Corrosion, toxic gas

production, Gravity
override of steam are
common problems
494
IN SITU COMBUSTION
Basic Concepts
A portion of the reservoir oil (~10%), called
fuel is used to generate heat in the formation
Oxygen (air, or enriched air) must be injected
Too much or too little fuel deposition is
undesirable
Severe mechanical problems detract from the
favourable features of combustion
SMFA-ST 20071128
495
Forward
Combustion
Reverse
Combustion
seldom feasible.
Dietz
SMFA-ST 20071128
496
IN SITU COMBUSTION
Mechanisms
Complex process: the combustion zones acts as a
piston that consumes or displaces the fluids in front
Thermal cracking cause fuel deposition at the
combustion front
Combustion gas vaporizes light oil and water
Severe gravity segregation
Rate sensitive: channelling and minimum flux
Oxygen ahead of the front: low temperature
oxidation
SMFA-ST 20071128
497
IN SITU COMBUSTION
Variations
Forward Combustion
Temperatures are of the order of 1000-1400F
Process can be improved by water injection
Oil must be mobile under original conditions
Reverse Combustion
Almost never feasible under field conditions
Temperatures are much higher
Slow oxidation consumes oxygen before it
reaches the combustion front
SMFA-ST 20071128
498
IN SITU COMBUSTION
Field Experience
Forward combustion has been commercially
successful in lighter, mobile oils
Typical air-oil ratio is 3000 sm3 air/sm3 oil
Over 200 field projects carried out very
few commercially successful; currently less
than a dozen major projects in operation
Total oil production by combustion is ~1%
that by steam injection (<5000 B/D)
SMFA-ST 20071128
499
IN SITU COMBUSTION
Operational Problems
High gas production rates, causing gas
locking, erosion, limiting liquid flow
Toxic gases make pollution control costly
Emulsion production, character changes
High temperatures, causing mechanical
damage, corrosion, pumping problems
Sand production
Firefront control in the formation is difficult
SMFA-ST 20071128
500
IN SITU COMBUSTION
Comparison with steam
injection
In a steamflood, steam front advance

requires that the steamed region is at steam
temperature. Result: high heat loss. Not so
in combustion
Steamflooding involves essentially twophase flow. In situ combustion involves
three-phase flow, with the gas phase
dominating
Steam injection is always preferable
SMFA-ST 20071128
501
IN SITU COMBUSTION
Experience in light oils
Earliest combustion tests were in the
Bradford field, Pennsylvania. Unsuccessful,
because oil did not deposit enough fuel to
support combustion
Tests in Fry, Illinois, were successful, even
though waterflooded light oil
Oxygen enrichment suggested to make up
for fuel deficiency largely unsuccessful
SMFA-ST 20071128
502
IN SITU COMBUSTION
Situations where it may be
desirable
Thin formations, because heat loss is much less

severe than in steam injection
Deep formations (if air injectivity is high)
If bottom water is present
If formation has been previously waterflooded,
but there is enough oil to deposit the requisite
amount of fuel
SMFA-ST 20071128
503
WET COMBUSTION
Under ideal conditions it is in situ steam
generation; difficult to achieve
Variations Look good in lab, fail in the field.
Normal wet combustion (~1.7 kg water/sm3
[300 bbls water/MMscf air])
Partially quenched combustion
Quenched combustion (~6.7 kg water/sm3 air
[1200 bbls water/MMscf air])
SMFA-ST 20071128
504
IN SITU COMBUSTION
Producing well problems
High gas rates
Fines in produced
liquids
Acids
Oxygen
High temperatures
Toxic and odorous gas
Cracked oil
SMFA-ST 20071128
Lead to:
Poor gas-liquid separation
Increase sand production
Tight emulsions
Explosive gas mixture
Corrosive conditions
Wellbore fires
Holes cut in liner or tubing
505
RESULTS OF COMBUSTION
PROBLEMS
High bottomhole pressure
High downtime, compressor breakdowns
Frequent well service
Low pump efficiency
Low air injection rates
Difficult separation of oil and water
Water cooling and production gas controls
Gas collection and incineration
Possible oil sales problems
SMFA-ST 20071128
506
HIGH PRESSURE AIR

INJECTION
Air is injected at a high pressure, at a high
rate, in relatively light oils
Low temperature oxidation over a great
distance causes heat generation, mobilizing
oil, plus distillation - mechanism not clear
Also gas drive displaces oil
Several apparently successful projects
SMFA-ST 20071128
507
RESERVOIR-RELATED
High gas mobility ISSUES
krg/g >> (kro/o + krw/w)
Low vertical sweep
Following BT downward growth by diffusion
Extinction
Occurs at different times along the front
Role of LTO
Ahead of front? Are low producing AORs good?
Liquid mobility at the producers

What is a viable minimum koh/o ?
Fracture burning (natural or induced)

Highly dependent on fracture block size
SMFA-ST 20071128
508
HIGH GAS MOBILITY

Gas flow far overrides liquid flow
An example, based on three-phase flow
equations, and oil viscosity of 100 cp and gas
viscosity of 0.02 cp, Swir=0.30
SMFA-ST 20071128
509
Sg=100%
krg
g
R=
kro krw
+
o w
Sw=0%
So=0%
R=30
R=0.1
R=15
Sw=100%
So=100%
Sg=0%
R=1
SMFA-ST 20071128
R=5
510
LOW VERTICAL SWEEP
Once air breakthrough occurs in the producers,

further downwards growth of the burned
interval is slow, and depends on diffusion.
Burned sand
SMFA-ST 20071128
511
EXTINCTION
May occur at various times on a variable velocity

combustion surface
Temperature
Minimum combustion temperature
Radial distance
Extinction
SMFA-ST 20071128
512
ROLE OF LTO
Several issues
Does it occur ahead of the firefront even in
HTO?
Meaning of Low Air-Oil Ratio
Role of LTO in high pressure air injection (in
light oils, no ignition)
SMFA-ST 20071128
513
LIQUID MOBILITY AT
PRODUCERS
Producers must be able to permit liquid
production to support air injection
No practical way to stimulate the producers
In the absence of stimulation
air breakthrough will occur with low sweep, if
injection pressures are high
permeability blocking
SMFA-ST 20071128
514
FRACTURE BURNING
If combustion is carried out in a fractured system natural or

induced oil recovery is determined by the size and
petrophysical properties of the fractures and the blocks; an
example Oil recovery and matrix temp vs. block size
Oil Rec, %
Avg Matrix Temp, C
1000
100
10
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
0.1
0.01
SMFA-ST 20071128
Block size, m
515
SAGD: general concepts,

theory. Geological and
process limitations
SMFA-ST 20071128
516
SAGD: Steam-Assisted
Gravity Drainage
Remarkable success in Athabasca bitumen,
where there was no previous oil production
Other areas look good
Key paper by Scott compares CSS and
SAGD
R.M. Butler: Various papers.
SMFA-ST 20071128
517
SAGD
(Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage)

Relies on conduction heating and gravity drainage
Utilizes a pair of parallel horizontal wells in the same
vertical plane
SAGD Basics
Effective to mobilize
bitumen
Energy intensive process
Performance:
Canada: 7 commercial
operations
California: Many Failures
Venezuela: Partial success
SMFA-ST 20071128
(After R.M. Butler)
Formation top
Steam flows
into interface
and condenses
Continuous steam
injection into chamber
Formation base
Heated oil
flow to well
.
.
Oil and condensate

drain continuously
Mechanism:
Steam condenses at interface
Oil and condensate drain to well at bottom
Flow is caused by gravity
Chamber grows upwards and sideways
518
TWO SAGD WELL PAIRS
SMFA-ST 20071128
519
SAGD COMMERCIAL
STATUS
Total production >100,000 B/D from 110 horizontal well pairs
Six commercial projects:

EnCana Foster Creek OPERATING
EnCana Christina Lake JUST STARTED
PetroCanada MacKay River OPERATING
Suncor Firebag
OPERATING
Opti-Nexen Long Lake JUST STARTED
Conoco-Phillips Surmont JUST STARTED
Several pilots in operation

SMFA-ST 20071128
520
SMFA-ST 20071128
521
En Cana Foster Creek
OTHER SAGD EXPERIENCE
Not commercially successful in Peace River,

Alberta
Many failures in California oil is too mobile for
steam to be confined to a chamber, also vertical
flow barriers
Partial success in Venezuela steam migrated to
neighbouring wells
Failure in China
Imperial have never done SAGD in their leases
reasons unknown (geology, commitment to CSS,
profitability?)
SMFA-ST 20071128
522
SAGD: FUTURE
BREAKTHROUGHS
Reducing steam requirement
Utilizing the produced heat (only 10% of
the heat is retained in the sand)
Bitumen recovery from the sand bodies
between well pairs
Gas injection late in the life
SMFA-ST 20071128
523
OTHER PROCESSES
SAGP (Steam Assisted Gas Push)
Intent is to replace steam by a gas, such as

natural gas, nitrogen, flue gas, for cost
reduction, late in the life of SAGD
Few field results largely negative
ESSAGD (Expanded Solvent SAGD)

Solvent injected with steam, will condense in
cooler parts of the reservoir, and lower
viscosity there largely of academic interest
SMFA-ST 20071128
524
OIL SATURATION
ON VERTICAL CROSS-SECTION
COMMERCIAL PROJECT
Poor
Fair
V Good
V Poor
Good
V Poor
Poor
Good
Fair
Poor
0 years
5 years
Good
Good
Good
Fair
20-30% So
V Good
Fair
Good
Shaly
Good
10 years
15 years
V Good
SMFA-ST 20071128
525
Simulations by EXOTHERM
64 m
SAGD Basics
Formation top
After R.M. Butler
ss
e
c
o
Pr
D
3
y
l
g
n
o
r
t
is s
Formation
base
SMFA-ST 20071128
526
CSS vs SAGD
Gas Consumption
George R. Scott, SPE/CIM-CHOA 79020, 2002.

SMFA-ST 20071128
527
SAGD EQUATION
SMFA-ST 20071128
528
SMFA-ST 20071128
529
En Cana Foster Creek
SMFA-ST 20071128
530
SMFA-ST 20071128
531
PetroCanada McKay River
SMFA-ST 20071128
532
OTHER SAGD EXPERIENCE

Not commercially successful in Peace River,
Alberta
Many failures in California oil is too mobile for
steam to be confined to a chamber, also vertical
flow barriers
Partial success in Venezuela steam migrated to
neighbouring wells
Failure in China
Imperial have never done SAGD in their leases
reasons unknown (geology, commitment to CSS,
profitability?)
SMFA-ST 20071128
533
SAGD: FUTURE
BREAKTHROUGHS
Reducing steam requirement
Utilizing the produced heat (only 10% of
the heat is retained in the sand)
Bitumen recovery from the sand bodies
between well pairs
Gas injection late in the life
SMFA-ST 20071128
534
SINGLE WELL SAGD

Well equipped with an insulated coil tubing
to convey steam at the horizontal liner shoe
Very complex process
A few successes, many failures
Costly well completion
Still largely experimental
SMFA-ST 20071128
535
SINGLE WELL SAGD

an idea whose time is past
One of the many EOR methods that look good at
first, but limitations appear only after a large field
pilot
SMFA-ST 20071128
536
EOR METHODS FOR NFR

Problems:
1. Most of the oil is in the matrix, with low
permeability, adjacent to fractures with very
high permeability (e.g. 10 mdmatrix vs.
10,000fracture darcies) and low porosity (18%matrix
vs. <2%fracture)
2. The rates of recovery from the matrix and the
fractures are vastly different
SMFA-ST 20071128
537
Production rate
PRIMARY RECOVERY FROM NFR
Time
SMFA-ST 20071128
538
FRACTURE BLOCK AND ITS

SIMPLIFIED
REPRESENTATION
SMFA-ST 20071128
539
SAGOGD: STEAM ASSISTED

GAS-OIL GRAVITY DRAINAGE
Being tested in QarnAlam field in Oman; similar
process tested in Yates field
Steam
Oil and hot water
Fractures
GAS
OIL
Steam heats the matrix, releases oil from the gas

cap, condensate and oil are produced.
SMFA-ST 20071128
540
SMFA-ST 20071128
541
RECOVERY FROM
FRACTURES
Viscous drive based methods

Waterflooding
Gas drive
Miscible drives
Chemical methods
Hot waterflooding
Steamflooding
In situ combustion
These have an impact on

recovery from matrix also
Gravity flow based methods

Gas-oil gravity drainage (GOGD)
Thermally assisted gas-oil gravity drainage (TAGOGD)
Steam assisted gas-oil gravity drainage (SAGOGD)
SMFA-ST 20071128
542
RECOVERY FROM MATRIX
Surfactant injection
to promote water imbibition into the matrix

to alter wettability (if originally oil-wet)
to emulsify the oil
Polymer injection
to improve the mobility ratio for displacing oil
Hot water injection

to lower IFT by heat, and so promote imbibition
to cause thermal expansion of oil
to lower oil viscosity
Steamflooding
to lower IFT by heat, promoting imbibition

to cause steam distillation of light fractions
to cause thermal expansion of oil
to lower oil viscosity
In situ combustion
for heating of matrix to very high temperatures for
SMFA-ST 20071128
limited time
543
CURRENT PROJECTS IN
ALBERTA
Company
Syncrude
Suncor Voyager
Athabasca Oil Sands
Horizon Oil Sands
Fort Hills
Kearl Lake
Northern Lights
Firebag
Long Lake
MacKay River
Christina Lake
Dover
Whitesands
Surmont
Jackfish
Hangingstone
Sunrise
Joslyn
Cold Lake
Foster Creek
Primrose/Wolf Lake
Tucker Lake
Table 5 - Current and Future Projects in the Oil Sands

Name, Type of Current Future Prod,
Current
Project
Prod,
B/D
Investment,
B/D
$million
Surface mining
250,000 550,000 (2015) 2,000+
Surface mining
225,000 550,000 (2012) 1,500
Surface mining
155,000 225,000
5,700
Surface mining
270,000 (2008)
Surface mining
50,000 (2009)
178
Surface mining
100,000 (2009)
Surface Mining
100,000 (2009)
SAGD
8,000
140,000 (2010)
SAGD
60,000 (2011)
SAGD
20,000
35,000
SAGD
10,000
85,000 (2007)
VAPEX
2,200
THAI
SAGD
600
100,000 (2014)
SAGD
35,000 (2008)
SAGD
6,000
10,000 (2009)
SAGD
50,000 (2008)
SAGD
600
10,000 (2006)
23.6
CSS
121,000 180,000 (2008)
SAGD
28,000 100,000 (2010)
Horizontal Well CSS
35,000
90,000 (2008)
SAGD
30,000 (2007)
Totals
1,407,000
2,712,000
Contribution of surface mining
630,000 (45%) 1,845,000 (68%)
SMFA-ST 20071128
Future
Investment,
$million
10,000+
Not known
2,000
9,500
8,000
5,000
3,400
400
1,400
400
2,250
650
250
500
~$45 billion
544
CSS: RISKS
Low bitumen saturation

Mobile water
Water sands present
Shale stringers in oil-bearing zone
Sand production
Formation too shallow
SMFA-ST 20071128
545
SAGD RISKS
Higher than CSS, more complex well operation
Barriers to vertical flow

Water sands present
Gas-bearing sands present
High injection pressure requirement
Steam migration to other areas
Well problems, related to sand
SMFA-ST 20071128
546
SAGD or CSS?
Really, there is no choice geology and fluid
characteristics and saturations would determine
the process to use.
If both applicable, CSS is the better choice
because less risk, more opreating choices, far
more field experience
Availability of gas, diluents, water, market for
electricity (from co-generation) are other
considerations
SMFA-ST 20071128
547
OTHER PROCESSES
SAGP (Steam Assisted Gas Push)
Intent is to replace steam by a gas, such as
natural gas, nitrogen, flue gas, for cost
reduction, late in the life of SAGD
Few field results largely negative
ESSAGD (Expanded Solvent SAGD)

Solvent injected with steam, will condense in
cooler parts of the reservoir, and lower
viscosity there largely of academic interest
SMFA-ST 20071128
548
Numerical simulation:
general concepts. What is available
and
how good are the simulations?
Examples
SMFA-ST 20071128
549
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
Numerical simulation of a fieldwide steam
injection project is now feasible
Process description is still incomplete
In situ combustion simulation is feasible,
but basic kinetics data is lacking; also very
small grid blocks must be used
Compositional, rather than black oil
approach requires much computation as
well as lab data, but is recommended for
thermal problems
SMFA-ST 20071128
550
Numerical simulation is a powerful technique,but

is still limited in describing all the mechanisms in
a thermal process. Some areas of uncertainty:
Relative permeabilities (temp., hysteresis)
Emulsion formation and flow
Geochemical aspects, hydrothermal reactions
Proper representation of flow in a horizontal well
Geomechanical aspects
SMFA-ST 20071128
551
ADVANTAGES OF
Numerical simulation permits detailed
treatment of a reservoir, using a grid
which demands much more information
than is really available
Simulation can account for geological
features, if known
Multiple wells can be simulated for
interaction and communication
SMFA-ST 20071128
552
STEAM INJECTION
LAB MODELS
Low pressure scaling criteria of Stegemeier
et al. have been very successful, and
modified by the authors for a variety of
applications, including horizontal wells
used by the authors to study field projects
High pressure models were used for steam
flow around injection and production wells,
vertical and horizontal
SMFA-ST 20071128
553
OIL SATURATION
ON VERTICAL CROSS-SECTION
COMMERCIAL PROJECT
Poor
Fair
V Good
V Poor
Good
V Poor
Poor
Good
Fair
Poor
0 years
5 years
Good
Good
Good
Fair
20-30% So
V Good
Fair
Good
Shaly
Good
10 years
15 years
V Good
SMFA-ST 20071128
554
Simulations by EXOTHERM
64 m
VALUE OF SCALED
MODELS
Scaled models retain many aspects of
reservoir flow and fluid interactions that are
not represented in numerical simulation
Scaled models have been successfully used
for all thermal processes
Scaled models are a valuable adjunct to
numerical simulation
SMFA-ST 20071128
555
LIMITATIONS OF
PHYSICAL MODELS
Unscaled physical models are useful for
gaining insight into process mechanisms, as
a first step towards the development of
numerical models, but out of scale
Scaled models are useful for modelling only
a portion of the field, with limited
geological description
SMFA-ST 20071128
556
TYPES OF EXPERIMENTS
Many different experiments were conducted:
Some examples:
Bottom water studies
Effect of gas/solvent injection
Water injection after steam
Horizontal/vertical well combinations
California reservoirs: gravity flow with steam
Tangleflags field project design
SAGD studies
SMFA-ST 20071128
557
TWO EXAMPLES OF SAGD

MODEL STUDIES
Steam distribution in SAGD wells
Steam is very unevenly distributed around the
injection well difficult to predict using a
simulator
The final recovery curve for SAGD from the
experiment was closer to the actual field curve
than the numerical simulation
SMFA-ST 20071128
558
EXAMPLES OF SAGD
SMFA-ST 20071128
559
ACTUAL, MODEL AND SIMULATED

OIL RATE OF CALIFORNIA
STEAMFLOOD
70
Oil Production Rate, m3/day
60
Simulation
50
Model
40
Field
30
20
10
0
0
SMFA-ST 20071128
0.5
1.5
Years
2.5
3.5
4.5
560

EOR Course Slides by Farouq Ali

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

EOR Course Slides by Farouq Ali

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ENHANCED OIL

(Numbers give reserves in billions of barrels)

CHINA MEXICO NORTH

(Data from Oil & Gas Journal, Dec.18, 2006)

World oil consumption

Recovery Factor is the key number that we need

10-30% light oil

50-60% (California heavy oil)

HEAVY OIL & TAR

Recovery Factor 33%

Recovery Factor 10%

1680 trillion cubic feet

One trillion = 1012

Present world energy consumption is over

OTHER ENERGY RESOURCES

Canada Other countries

COST OF PRODUCING ONE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLD

GENERAL DESIGN OF EOR

Initial fluid in place

Primary 25% OOIP

MISCIBLE AND IMMISCIBLE

Gas Injection for pressure maintenance the oldest recovery method

Miscible or immiscible displacement

MISCIBLE & IMMISCIBLE

Mainly Three Types of Systems:

GAS INJECTION FOR OIL

GAS INJECTION: HISTORY

Surfactant Based Processes

GAS INJECTION: HISTORY

Solvent Injection recovered more oil after

CO2 and Flue Gas were also used

GAS INJECTION: HISTORY

Mainly two types:

Single Contact Miscible (SCM) Process

Also known as First Contact Miscible (FCM)

Multiple Contact Miscible Process MCM

Solvent and reservoir oil become miscible

GAS INJECTION: HISTORY

Large number of projects in Canada and the

Successful in secondary and tertiary modes

GAS INJECTION: HISTORY

High energy consumption and declining oil

Total Prod., B/d

EOR PRODUCTION BY GAS

GAS INJECTION PROJECTS AND

Oil Production, B/D

(No. of Proje cts in bracke ts)

Total Prod., B/d

HYDROCARBON MISCIBLE PROJECTS

(No. of Projects in brackets)

Oil Production, B/D

Venezuela Abu Dhabi

PRODUCING AND PLANNED

Enhanced Production, B/D

Enhanced Production, B/D

HISTORY - HYDROCARBON MISCIBLE

PRODUCING CO2 MISCIBLE

Total Prod., B/d

Total Prod., B/d

EOR PRODUCTION BY CO2

Oil Production, B/D

Enhanced Oil Production, B\D

PRODUCING CO2 MISCIBLE