Ashrafi 2011
Ashrafi 2011
Ashrafi 2011
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western North American Regional Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 7–11 May 2011.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
Abstract
Extra heavy oil and bitumen reservoirs constitute a huge proportion of total world oil reserves. Thermal recovery and steam
based methods are the most widely used recovery methods in these kinds of reservoirs. Steam injection into fractured heavy oil
reservoirs to recover matrix oil has been considered as an efficient EOR method. However, mechanism of steam injection is
more complex in fractured reservoirs than in conventional reservoirs. Evaluation of steam injection in fractured porous media
requires good understanding of the physical processes between rock and fluids in matrix and fracture. In fact recovery could be
a combination of several mechanisms such as viscous forces, capillary imbibition, thermal expansion and gravity drainage.
This paper presents experimental and simulation study of steam flooding in fractured porous media that contains Athabasca
heavy oil. Some PVT properties of Athabasca crude oil have been measured experimentally and simulation study was
accomplished using a numerical thermal reservoir simulator. A single horizontal fracture and two surrounding matrix blocks
have been defined to verify the performance of steam injection in a 20 cm long sandstone core with a permeability of 640 mD
saturated with Athabasca heavy crude. Considering a fractured system, sensitivity analyses were focused on the effect of
injection rate, fracture permeability and steam quality.
The most important conclusion is that there is an optimum steam temperature and quality for most efficient steam injection.
The permeability of the fracture should be low considering both oil production and steam oil ratio (SOR), which is a measure
of economy. Matrix permeability of 640 mD in sandstone core provides satisfactory recovery and SOR. Higher matrix
permeability can cause very high SOR and affect the economy of the process. Results also clearly show that higher injection
rate improve the oil recovery. However, SOR should also be considered at the same time. There is a trade-off between
recovery and SOR. It is also clear that lower fracture width shows better recovery while causing high injection pressure at the
inlet.
Introduction
Steam injection into fractured reservoirs containing heavy oil or bitumen can be of particular interest. Mechanism of oil
recovery and the interaction between the oil in the matrix and the injected steam in the fracture network is not fully
understood. Whether the injected steam will break through the fracture network, leaving matrix oil trapped, or it will be
trapped by the drained oil from matrix, can be investigated by numerical and experimental work.
In this study, PVT properties of Athabasca bitumen like viscosity versus temperature were measured in the laboratory. In
addition gas chromatography and compositional analysis, density versus temperature and interfacial tension between bitumen
and steam at different temperatures were measured experimentally. Numerical simulations were conducted to examine the
effectiveness of steam injection in a single horizontal fracture inside a core. Two matrix blocks and a single fracture in
between are considered. The matrix is saturated with Athabasca bitumen. Permeability and porosity of a sandstone core sample
measured in the laboratory were used in the simulation studies. Different injection schemes were simulated with varying
operating and reservoir parameters.
The results of these sensitivity analyses and discussions are given in this work.
2 SPE 144462
Experimental work
Some laboratory experiments were performed to get fluid properties of the bitumen needed for numerical simulation purposes.
These experiments are presented as follows.
A digital rotational viscometer, with the ability to measure viscosity of fluids from room temperature up to 300 °C, was used
to get the viscosity versus temperature behavior of Athabasca bitumen sample. The sample is obtained from an oil sand
reservoir in Athabasca produced using SAGD method. The sample has not been exposed to any solvent and the condensed
water produced together with the bitumen has been removed at high temperature. Fig. 1 compares our measured viscosity
versus bitumen viscosity given by Mehrotra and Svrcek, 1986.
Khan et al. (1984) presented empirical correlations for the effect of temperature on the viscosity of gas free Athabasca
bitumen. One of their correlations is given as below:
݈݈݊݊ሺߤሻ ൌ ܿଵ ݈݊ܶ ܿଶ ……………………………. (1)
In this equation μ is dynamic viscosity of heavy oil sample in “mPa.s” or “cp”, at atmospheric pressure and temperature T (K).
The constants c1 and c2 are empirical and can be found for each sample using experimental data. They can be determined using
the least square parameter estimation technique. A graphical representation of double logarithm of viscosity versus logarithm
of absolute temperature is presented in Fig. 2. This figure compares laboratory measured viscosity data in this study with the
viscosity correlation fit according to eq. 1 for 4 different bitumen samples as given by Khan et al. (1984). They fit the viscosity
data for 4 bitumen samples and presented the constant values of eq.1 as given in legends of Fig. 2. The equation for the line,
fitting our laboratory data points, is also shown in Fig. 2, which is in good agreement with Khan et al. (1984) data.
The gas chromatography (GC) and compositional analysis of a sample of Athabasca bitumen is performed. The details of these
analyses are given elsewhere (Bjørkvik, 2010). Only the compositional analysis of the bitumen sample is presented here as in
Table 1 (Bjørkvik, 2010). There was no significant normal alkane lighter than C10. The sample is characterized into pseudo
components comprised of each even numbered normal alkane and the previous odd numbered normal alkane. The weight
percentages in Table 1 are accurate to the second decimal place. The mole fractions presented in this Table are obtained on the
basis of the weight percentages, the Katz-Firoozabadi generalized properties (1978), molar mass measured by cryoscopy
(described further down in the paper) and oil density measured in a density measurement cell (described further down in the
paper) (Bjørkvik, 2010).
SPE 144462 3
Figure 2 – Bitumen viscosity correlation - double logarithm of viscosity shows straight line behavior versus logarithm of temperature
Pseudo-component Mass fraction (%) Mole fraction (%) Molar mass (g/gmol) Density (g/cm3)
C10 0.211 0.842 134.0 0.7780
C11 – C12 0.948 3.286 154.0 0.7945
C13 – C14 1.976 5.782 182.5 0.8165
C15 – C16 3.006 7.501 214.0 0.8355
C17 – C18 3.731 8.166 244.0 0.8495
C19 – C20 4.068 8.075 269.0 0.8595
C21 – C22 3.959 7.094 298.0 0.8695
C23 – C24 3.759 6.186 324.5 0.8790
C25 – C26 3.594 5.453 352.0 0.8870
C27 – C28 3.602 5.048 381.0 0.8945
C29 – C30 3.437 4.487 409.0 0.9005
C31 – C32 3.265 3.989 437.0 0.9075
C33 – C34 2.577 2.959 465.0 0.9130
C35 – C36 2.599 2.815 493.0 0.9180
C37 – C38 2.309 2.366 521.0 0.9230
C39+ 56.960 25.950 1172.1 1.1474
Total / Average 100.000 100.000 534.0 1.0129
The molar mass of the oil sample is measured by freezing point depression (cryoscopy) using benzene as a solvent. The result
shows the molar mass of Athabasca bitumen to be 534±2 g/gmole (Bjørkvik, 2010).
Oil density was measured using a high temperature high pressure density measuring cell calibrated using nitrogen gas and pure
water at the desired temperatures. Density measurements were run at standard temperature of 15.56 °C and higher pressures of
5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 bara. From the extrapolation of the linear relationship between oil density and pressure, the oil density was
found at standard condition (SC) of 1.01325 bara and 15.56 °C to be 1.0129 g/cm3. The oil density was also measured at
higher temperatures of 120 °C, 140 °C, 160 °C, 180 °C and 195 °C for each pressure to get a reliable oil density versus
4 SPE 144462
temperature and pressure, which was found to be in the range of 0.90 – 0.95 g/cm3. The details of measurements and results
are given elsewhere (Bjørkvik, 2010).
Interfacial tension measurement
The interfacial tension (IFT) between oil drop and steam is measured using pendant drop method at a temperature range
between 120 °C and 220 °C. The results showed significant variation that could be due to inhomogeneity of the oil drops with
respect to polar/surface active agents. The IFT, however, was in the range of 18 mN/m – 25 mN/m between 120 °C and 220 °C
with a decreasing trend versus temperature.
Numerical model
Numerical simulation is performed to examine the effect of steam injection into a fractured core. The core is sandstone, and
the model consists of two matrix blocks on top of each other leaving a tiny horizontal fracture in between. The simulation
study was performed using CMG STARS thermal simulator, typical reservoir properties of Athabasca oil sand reservoirs and
some laboratory measured fluid properties.
A Cartesian coordinate system is used to be able to place the horizontal fracture along the core. This approach has been
considered in the literature (Schechter, 2002). The squared cross-sectional area of the cubic model is considered so that it is
equal to the cross-sectional area of the core. The numerical model considered is shown in the following figure (Fig. 3).
Different steam injection conditions are examined in the fractured core model. Steam temperature and quality were the
parameters examined. Increasing the temperature of injected steam will cause more energy input into the model, which results
in improved cumulative oil production. As can be seen in Fig. 4 the ultimate recovery is increased as the temperature of
injected steam is raised from 180 °C to 221 °C. However, the difference in terms of recovery is not so big between 200 °C
(91.2% recovery) and 221 °C (91.8% recovery). Having in mind that the higher the steam temperature the higher the cost of
steam generation and the higher energy input, one might suggest that 200 °C steam temperature would be satisfactory. To
operate beyond this temperature would not be economical as we are injecting more heat while enhanced oil produced is
insignificant.
The temperature 200 °C was chosen as the steam injection temperature in the rest of the simulation runs and the effect of
different steam qualities on the final oil production was examined. Steam with qualities of 50, 75, 85, 95 and 100% was
injected in the system. Cumulative oil production curve is shown in Fig. 5. Injecting steam with higher quality will introduce
more heat content in the porous media, and as the result the process will be more effective with increased cumulative
production. This is what can be seen in the earlier times in Fig. 5. However, a closer look at the later times reveals some other
behavior. The late production times are magnified in Fig. 6. The figure shows that up to the steam quality of 85% the increased
recovery as a result of higher steam quality is apparent. As the quality is further raised to 95 and 100%, however, the effect
SPE 144462 5
vanishes and less ultimate oil production is observed. Similar behavior was observed when steam injection was performed
with different steam temperatures.
Table 2 – Numerical simulation parameters used in this study: Model properties are mostly assumed based on available laboratory
core measurements, rock properties and fluid properties are taken from literature except bitumen molar mass and density which were
measured in the laboratory
Model properties
Width 3.3588 cm
Height 3.3588 cm
Length 20 cm
Matrix permeability 640 mD
Matrix porosity 0.19
Fracture permeability 5000 mD
Fracture porosity 1
Fracture width 1 mm
Initial temperature 21°C
Oil saturation 0.95
Water saturation 0.05
Rock properties Law et al. (2000), Chow (1993), Yang and Gates (2009)
Fluid properties Law et al. (2000), Chow (1993), Yang and Gates (2009)
Figure 4 – Cumulative oil production for different steam injection temperatures at 85% steam quality
Figure 5 – Cumulative oil production for different steam qualities at 200 °C steam temperature
Figure 6 – Cumulative oil production for different steam qualities at 200 °C steam temperature – magnified at later times
SPE 144462 7
An investigation into snapshots of the core and the saturation distribution shows what is happening at very high steam
qualities. Snapshot of the core at a very late time showing oil and water saturations are shown in Fig. 7. The left column in this
figure shows snapshots when the injected steam had 85% quality and the snapshots for 100% quality are shown in the right
column. When steam of quality of 1 is injected as can be seen in Fig.7.d the liquid water saturation is lower in the core
especially at the inlet face of the core (Compare with Fig.7.c). This is due to the lower liquid content of the injected steam,
which even causes some evaporation of interstitial water at the inlet face of injection. As the water saturation is even below the
initial water saturation, residual oil saturation is higher in these grid blocks compared to the rest of the blocks (Figs 7.b and
7.a). This is because the simulator cannot decrease the liquid saturation (sum of oil and water) below the initial liquid
saturation, which is set to 20%. Investigating different steam temperature and quality reveals the same behavior. The
conclusion is that in steam injection processes, it is better not to have very high steam quality. There is an optimum quality of
steam which for this case was found to be around 85%.
Figure 7.a – Oil saturation distribution at 2200 min for the Figure 7.b – Oil saturation distribution at 2200 min for the case
case of steam injection at 200 °C and 85% quality of steam injection at 200 °C and 100% quality
Figure 7.c – Water saturation distribution at 2200 min for the Figure 7.d – Water saturation distribution at 2200 min for the
case of steam injection at 200 °C and 85% quality case of steam injection at 200 °C and 100% quality
Another sensitivity parameter analyzed in this study was the fracture permeability (kf). The permeability of the fracture in the
base simulation case was considered to be 5 Darcies, which in reality represents a fracture opening of 7.75 μm. Other cases
with lower and higher kf values were simulated, while the fracture opening was considered to be the same. Cumulative oil
production is shown in Fig. 8 and the cumulative water oil ratio (WOR) is given in Fig. 9. Higher kf values result in early
steam break through, not enough heat communication with matrix and higher residual oil saturation in the matrix. Therefore
cumulative oil production is decreased as the permeability of fracture is increased. Lower cumulative oil production with
higher kf explains the high WOR values in these situations as seen in Fig. 9. The case of non-fractured core is also compared
with other kf cases. The reason for higher oil recovery in this case is the huge injection pressure at the inlet face of the core.
Pressure builds up in the core because there is no injectivity. Pressures at the injection port are compared in Fig. 10.
8 SPE 144462
Figure 8 – Cumulative oil production for different fracture permeability cases - injecting steam at 200 °C and 85 % quality
Figure 9 – Cumulative water oil ratio for different fracture permeability cases - injecting steam at 200 °C and 85 % quality
Figure 10 – Pressure at the injection face of the core for different fracture permeability cases
SPE 144462 9
At early times, the WOR is very high. This is the period of time when only water is being produced through the fracture and
no oil is produced. During this period of time the injected steam is transferring thermal energy to oil in the porous matrix.
After a little bit of time, oil is heated up to some extent and it is now mobile. Oil starts to drain in to the fracture, blocking the
escape way of steam. As the result steam will be more in contact with the oil inside the matrix, heating up oil more effectively.
During this period the pressure is also built up at the injection face. Heated oil is now more mobile, and some oil is produced
from the core due to differential pressure across the core. This period is the flat part of the instantaneous WOR as shown in
Fig. 11. When oil inside the fracture breaks through, the instantaneous WOR increases. This happened around 430 min from
the start of injection as can be seen in Fig. 11. From this time on, the rate of water production is constant, as water is only
produced through the fracture, and oil is drained in to the fracture and produced. In the cases with higher fracture permeability,
more oil is produced and lower instantaneous WOR is observed.
Figure 11 – Instantaneous water oil ratio for different fracture permeability cases - injecting steam at 200 °C and 85 % quality
Permeability of the matrix can also play an important role on recovery from this fractured core. The results of varying matrix
permeability on cumulative oil recovery and WOR are shown in Figs. 12 and 13. Higher matrix permeability causes more
mobility and higher cumulative oil production. The behaviors of cumulative and instantaneous WOR were also similar to the
situation described for the fracture permeability case. Lower cumulative oil production results in higher cumulative WOR.
While in the graph of instantaneous WOR, water oil ratio is higher at earlier times and lower at later times for the cases
corresponding to lower oil recovery. It can also be said that lowering matrix permeability in numerical simulation while
fracture permeability is constant behaves as if fracture permeability is higher and matrix permeability is the same. Very high
instantaneous WOR at late times for high permeable matrix is due to the fact that all recoverable oil is produced, and in these
times almost no significant additional oil is produced. In fact, in this case oil recovery is faster, and it is economic to stop the
injection at earlier times say around 1000 min when recovery is almost 90% and instantaneous WOR is 20.
The rate of steam injection is varied, and the response is shown in Figs. 15 and 16. Although higher injection rate results in
faster recovery, one should consider the very high WOR associated with it. Figs. 15 and 16 clearly show that injecting with a
rate of 0.1 cc/min is the best choice. Although the oil recovery is not so fast for this rate of injection, the ultimate recovery is
the same as for other higher injection rates. One should note, however, that WOR with this injection rate is far more economic.
Let us now assume a very high permeable thin layer instead of the thin horizontal fracture in the core. The porosity of this thin
layer is assumed to be 40 % and the permeability is 5 Darcies. This will represent a heterogeneous core. Changing the
thickness of this horizontal high permeable layer has an effect similar to varying fracture permeability in fractured core cases.
Lower layer thickness corresponds to lower kf and vice versa. This can be seen in Figs. 17 and 18. Having lower layer
thickness increases the oil recovery. As discussed earlier for fracture permeability case, this happens since the high permeable
layer will be filled with the drained oil, which in turn causes the blockage of steam and better heat communication with the oil
in the lower permeable blocks. It should also be noted that setting very low thickness for the horizontal high permeable layer
behaves as if the core is not fractured and as the results huge pressure builds up at the injection face of the core (Fig. 19).
10 SPE 144462
Figure 12 – Cumulative oil production for different matrix permeability cases - injecting steam at 200 °C and 85 % quality
Figure 13 – Cumulative water oil ratio for different matrix permeability cases - injecting steam at 200 °C and 85 % quality
Figure 14 – Instantaneous water oil ratio for different matrix permeability cases - injecting steam at 200 °C and 85 % quality
SPE 144462 11
Figure 15 – Cumulative oil production for different injection rate cases - injecting steam at 200 °C and 85 % quality
Figure 16 – Cumulative water oil ratio for different injection rate cases - injecting steam at 200 °C and 85 % quality
Figure 17 – Cumulative oil production for different high permeable layer thickness cases - injecting steam at 200 °C and 85 % quality
12 SPE 144462
Figure 18 – Cumulative water oil ratio for different high permeable layer thickness cases - injecting steam at 200 °C and 85 % quality
Figure 19 – Pressure at the injection face of the core for different high permeable layer thickness cases
Conclusions
The performance of steam injection in a sandstone core containing Athabasca heavy crude with a horizontal fracture in the
middle was studied numerically. Considering a fractured system, sensitivity analyses were focused on the effect of steam
temperature and quality, fracture permeability, matrix permeability and injection rate. Another case was also considered where
the core was heterogeneous having a thin horizontal high permeable layer in the middle. In this case the sensitivity analysis
was performed on the thickness of this layer. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study.
• There is an optimum steam temperature and quality regarding efficiency of steam injection. In our case the best steam
temperature was 200 °C and steam quality of 85% resulted in a better oil recovery response. Higher steam
temperature introduces more energy into the porous media, while the extra oil recovery is insignificant. Increasing
steam quality, however, reduced oil recovery as there will be lower water saturation than interstitial water due to
evaporation at the inlet face and higher residual oil saturation.
• The fracture permeability should be quite low considering both oil production and steam oil ratio (SOR), which is a
measure of economy. In the presented case a fracture permeability of 5 Darcies was low enough considering pressure
at the inlet face of the core.
SPE 144462 13
• Matrix permeability of 640 mD provided satisfactory recovery and SOR. Higher matrix permeability results in a
faster recovery. However, it also causes very high SOR and affects the economy of the process.
• Higher injection rate improves the oil recovery. However, SOR should also be considered at the same time. There is a
trade-off between recovery and SOR. In the presented case an injection rate of 0.1 cc/min was found satisfactory.
• Considering a high permeable horizontal layer instead of fractured layer, it was figured out that lower thickness for
high permeable layer shows better recovery while causing high injection pressure at the inlet.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Statoil ASA for providing financial support and acknowledge SINTEF Petroleum Research
for collaboration in PVT properties analyses of Athabasca bitumen.
References
Bjørkvik, Bård J. A., (2010): “Athabasca heavy oil analyses: report”, SINTEF Petroleum Research, Seismic and Reservoir Technology,
Trondheim, Norway.
Chow, L., (1993): “Numerical Simulation of Heavy Oil Recovery By The Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage Process”, Thesis at the
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Coats, K.H., George, W.D., Marcum, B.E., (1974): “Three-Dimensional Simulation of Steamflooding”, SPE Journal, Dec. 1974.
Katz, D. L., Firoozabadi, A., (1978): “Predicting Phase Behavior of Condensate/Crude-Oil Systems Using Methane Interaction
Coefficients”, JPT (November 1978) 1649-1655; Trans., AIME, 265.
Khan, M. A. B., Mehrotra, A. K. and Svrcek, W. Y., (1984): “Viscosity Models for Gas-Free Athabasca Bitumen”, J. Can. Pet. Tech., 23(3),
47-53.
Law, D. H. S., Nasr, T. N., and Good, W. K., (2000): “Field-Scale Numerical Simulation of SAGD Process With Top-Water Thief Zone”,
paper SPE 65522 presented at SPE/Petroleum Society of CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada.
Mehrotra, A. K., Svrcek, W. Y., (1986): “Viscosity of compressed Athabasca bitumen”, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 64, 844.
Schechter David S., (2002): “Advanced reservoir characterization and evaluation of CO2 gravity drainage in the naturally fractured
Spraberry trend area”, The Third Annual Technical Progress Report, chapter 2, section3:
http://www.pe.tamu.edu/schechter/baervan/Annual_3/chapter_23.pdf
Yang X. and Gates I. D., (2009): “Combustion Kinetics of Athabasca Bitumen from 1D Combustion Tube Experiments”, Nat. Resources
Res., Vol. 18, No. 3, Sep. 2009.