Simulations of In-Situ Upgrading Process: Interpretation of Laboratory Experiments and Study of Field-Scale Test
- Alfredo Perez-Perez (Computational Hydrocarbon Laboratory for Optimized Energy Efficiency) | Marelys Mujica Chacín (Computational Hydrocarbon Laboratory for Optimized Energy Efficiency) | Igor Bogdanov (Computational Hydrocarbon Laboratory for Optimized Energy Efficiency) | Anne Brisset (Total) | Olivier Garnier (Total)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Journal
- Publication Date
- December 2019
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 2,711 - 2,730
- 2019.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- in situ upgrading
- 5 in the last 30 days
- 108 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
In-situ upgrading (IU) is a promising method of improved viscous- and heavy-oil recovery. The IU process implies a reservoir heating up and exposure to a temperature higher than 300°C for a time period long enough to promote a series of chemical reactions. The pyrolysis reactions produce lighter oleic and gaseous components, while a solid residue remains underground. In this work, we developed a numerical model of IU using laboratory experience (kinetics measurements and core experiments) and validated the results by applying our model to an IU field-scale test published in the literature. Finally, we studied different operational conditions in a search for energy-efficient configurations.
In this work, two types of IU experimental data are used from two vertical-tube experiments with Canadian bitumen cores (0.15 and 0.69 m). A general IU numerical model for the different experimental setups has been developed and compared with experimental data, using a commercial reservoir-simulator framework. This model is capable of representing the phase distribution of pseudocomponents, the thermal decomposition reactions of bitumen fractions, and the generation of gases and residue (solid) under thermal cracking conditions.
Simulation results for the cores exposed to a temperature of 380°C and production pressure of 15 bar have shown that oil production (per pseudocomponent) and oil-sample quality were well-predicted by the model. Some differences in gas production and total solid residue were observed with respect to laboratory measurements. Computer-assisted history matching was performed using an uncertainty-analysis tool with the most-important model parameters. To better understand IU field-scale test results, the Shell Viking pilot (Peace River) was modeled and analyzed with the proposed IU model. The appropriate gridblock size was determined and the calculation time was reduced using the adaptive mesh-refinement (AMR) technique. The quality of products, the recovery efficiency, and the energy expenses obtained with our model were in good agreement with the field test results. In addition, the conversion results (upgraded oil, gas, and solid residue) from the experiments were compared with those obtained in the field test. Additional analysis was performed to identify energy-efficient configurations and to understand the role of some key variables (e.g., heating period and rate and the production pressure) in the global IU upgrading performance. We discuss these results, which illustrate and quantify the interplay between energy efficiency and productivity indicators.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||20|
Alberta Energy Regulator. 2006. Pilot Project Viking: Annual Performance Presentations to EUB, http://www.aer.ca/documents/oilsands/insitu-presentations/2006PeaceRiverShellVikingPilot9874.pdf (accessed July 2015).
Alberta Energy Regulator. 2007. Pilot Project Viking: Annual Performance Presentations to EUB, http://www.aer.ca/documents/oilsands/insitu-presentations/2007PeaceRiverShellVikingPilot9874.pdf (accessed July 2015).
Alberta Energy Regulator. 2008. Pilot Project Viking: Annual Performance Presentations to EUB, http://www.aer.ca/documents/oilsands/insitu-presentations/2008PeaceRiverShellVikingPilot9874.pdf (accessed July 2015).
Alberta Energy Regulator. 2009. Pilot Project Viking: Annual Performance Presentations to EUB, http://www.aer.ca/documents/oilsands/insitu-presentations/2009PeaceRiverShellVikingPilot9874.pdf (accessed July 2015).
Alberta Energy Regulator. 2010. Pilot Project Viking: Annual Performance Presentations to EUB, http://www.aer.ca/documents/oilsands/insitu-presentations/2010PeaceRiverShellVikingPilot9874.pdf (accessed July 2015).
Alpak, F. O. and Vink, J. C. 2016. Adaptive Local-Global Multiscale Simulation of the In-Situ Conversion Process. SPE J. 21 (6): 2112–2127. SPE-173218-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/173218-PA.
Behar, F., Lorant, F., and Mazeas, L. 2008. Elaboration of New Compositional Kinetic Schema for Oil Cracking. Org. Geochem 39 (6): 764–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2008.03.007.
Burnham, A. K. 2010. Chemistry and Kinetics of Oil Shale Retorting. In Oil Shale: A Solution to the Liquid Fuel Dilemma, ed. O. I. Ogunsola, A. Hartstein, and O. Ogunsola, 115–134. Washington, DC: ACS Symposium Series, American Chemical Society.
Computer Modelling Group (CMG). 2014. STARS, Version 2014.10.
Egloff, G. and Morrell, J. C. 1927. Cracking of Bitumen Derived From Alberta Tar Sands. In Canadian Chemistry and Metallurgy, Vol. 11, 33. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Institute of Chemistry.
Galarraga, C. E. and Pereira-Almao, P. 2010. Hydrocracking of Athabasca Bitumen Using Submicronic Multimetallic Catalysts at Near In-Reservoir Conditions. Energy Fuels 24 (4): 2383–2389. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef9013407.
Gray, M. R. 1994. Upgrading Petroleum Residues and Heavy Oils. New York City: Marcel Dekker.
Hashemi, R., Nassar, N., and Pereira-Almao, P. 2014. Nanoparticle Technology for Heavy Oil In-Situ Upgrading and Recovery Enhancement: Opportunities and Challenges. Appl Energy 133 (15 November): 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.07.069.
Héraud, J. P., Kamp, A. M., and Argillier, J. F. 2011. In-Situ Upgrading of Heavy Oil and Bitumen. In Heavy Crude Oils: From Geology to Upgrading, ed. A.-Y. Huc. 387–404. Paris: Technip.
Kapadia, P. R., Kallos, M. S., and Gates, I. D. 2015. A Review of Pyrolysis, Aquathermolysis, and Oxidation of Athabasca Bitumen. Fuel Process Technol 131 (March): 270–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.11.027.
Kumar, J., Fusetti, L., and Corre, B. 2011. Modeling In-Situ Upgrading of Extraheavy Oils/Tar Sands by Subsurface Pyrolysis. Presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 15–17 November. SPE-149217-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/149217-MS.
Li, H., Vink, J. C., and Alpak, F. O. 2016. A Dual-Grid Method for the Upscaling of Solid-Based Thermal Reactive Flow, With Application to the In-Situ Conversion Process. SPE J. 21 (6): 2097–2111. SPE-173248-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/173248-PA.
Marrero, J. and Gani, R. 2001. Group-Contribution Based Estimation of Pure Component Properties. Fluid Phase Equilib 183–184 (1 July): 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3812(01)00431-9.
MATLAB 2011b. 2011. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts.
Ovalles, C., Vallejos, C., Vasquez, T. et al. 2003. Downhole Upgrading of Extra-Heavy Crude Oil Using Hydrogen Donors and Methane Under Steam Injection Conditions. Pet Sci Technol 21 (1–2): 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1081/LFT-120016947.
Peng, D. Y. and Robinson, D. B. 1976. A New Two-Constant Equation of State. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 15 (1): 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1021/i160057a011.
Perez-Perez, A., Gadou, M., and Bogdanov, I. 2017. Analysis of Adaptive Grid Refinement Technique for Simulations of ES-SAGD in Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Computat Geosci 21 (5–6): 937–948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-017-9651-2.
Perez-Perez, A., Mujica, M., Bogdanov, I. et al. 2014. Modeling In-Situ Upgrading of Heavy Oils by Subsurface Pyrolysis. Oral presentation given at the World Heavy Oil Congress, New Orleans, 5–7 March. WHOC14-232.
Rachford, H. H. Jr. and Rice, J. D. 1952. Procedure for Use of Electronic Digital Computers in Calculating Flash Vaporization Hydrocarbon Equilibrium. J Pet Technol 4 (10): 327–328. SPE-952327-G. https://doi.org/10.2118/952327-G.
Rodriguez-DeVecchis, V. M., Ortega, L. C., Scott, C. E. et al. 2017. Thermal Upgrading of Athabasca Bitumen in Porous Media: Limitations and Kinetic Modelling. Fuel 208 (15 November): 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.055.
Saber, N. and Shaw, J. 2009. Toward Multiphase Equilibrium Prediction for Ill-Defined Asymmetric Hydrocarbon Mixtures. Fluid Phase Equilib 285 (1–2): 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2009.07.014.
Shaw, J. M. and Zou, X. 2007. Phase Behavior of Heavy Oils. In Asphaltenes, Heavy Oils, and Petroleomics, eds. O. C. Mullins, E. Y. Sheu, A. Hammami, et al., 489–510. New York City: Springer.
Speight, J. G. 2013. Heavy and Extra-Heavy Oil Upgrading Technologies. Waltham, Massachusetts: Elsevier.
Weissman, J. G. 1997. Review of Processes for Downhole Catalytic Upgrading of Heavy Crude Oil. Fuel Process Technol 50 (2–3): 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(96)01067-3.