An Analytical Production Model for Primary Production and Cyclic Solvent Injection in a Heavy-Oil Reservoir
- Authors
- Hongze Ma (University of Regina) | Gaoming Yu (Yangtze University) | Yuehui She (Yangtze University) | Yongan Gu (University of Regina)
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.2118/195697-PA
- Document ID
- SPE-195697-PA
- Publisher
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Source
- SPE Journal
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 06
- Publication Date
- December 2019
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- Pages
- 2,695 - 2,710
- Language
- English
- ISSN
- 1086-055X
- Copyright
- 2019.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Disciplines
- Keywords
- material balance model (MBM), foamy-oil flow and solution-gas drive, cyclic solvent injection (CSI)
- Downloads
- 19 in the last 30 days
- 324 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
| SPE Member Price: | USD 12.00 |
| SPE Non-Member Price: | USD 35.00 |
Summary
In this paper, we formulated an analytical material-balance model (MBM) to predict cumulative heavy-oil and gas-production data, as well as the average reservoir pressures, during the primary production and subsequent cyclic solvent injection (CSI) in a heavy-oil reservoir. The theoretical MBM considers the nonequilibrium foamy-oil phase behavior and foamy-oil flow by invoking two kinetic equations with nucleation and decay coefficients. In addition, we conducted four laboratory sandpack tests of the primary production and subsequent CSI to validate the new production model. It was found that the predicted cumulative heavy-oil production data and average reservoir pressures agreed reasonably well with the measured data during the primary production and subsequent CSI. However, there were large discrepancies between the predicted and measured cumulative gas-production data in the CSI owing to its strong gas channeling, which is a major technical issue to be studied further. Moreover, dissolved CH4 in the heavy oil became dispersed CH4 bubbles more quickly when the nucleation coefficient was larger at a higher pressure-drawdown rate or in less-viscous heavy oil. The foamy heavy oil with dispersed CH4 bubbles was more stable when the decay coefficient was smaller at a higher pressure-drawdown rate or in more-viscous heavy oil. It was also found that the foamy-oil isothermal compressibility increased by 10 to 1,000 times and that the dispersed-gas percentage in the foamy oil could reach as high as 14 vol% during the primary production. The foamy-oil viscosity was reduced by 36 to 55%, and the solution CH4/heavy-oil ratio was decreased by 41 to 76% at the end of the CSI.
| File Size | 531 KB | Number of Pages | 16 |
References
Akhlaghinia, M., Torabi, F., and Chan, C. W. 2013. Effect of Temperature on Two-Phase Relative Permeabilities of Heavy Oil, Water, Carbon Dioxide, and Methane Determined by Displacement Technique. Energy Fuels 27 (3): 1185–1193. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef301248y.
Alshmakhy, A. and Maini, B. B. 2012. Foamy-Oil-Viscosity Measurement. J Can Pet Technol 51 (1): 60–65. SPE-136665-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/136665-PA.
Arora, P. and Kovscek, A. R. 2003. A Mechanistic Modeling and Experimental Study of Solution Gas Drive. Transp Porous Media 51 (3): 237–267. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022353925107.
Bayron, Y. M., Coates, R. M., Lillico, D. A. et al. 2002. Application and Comparison of Two Models of Foamy Oil Behavior of Long Core Depletion Experiments. Presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology Conference, Calgary, 4–7 November. SPE-78961-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/78961-MS.
Bikerman, J. J. 1973. Foams, first edition. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Bondino, I., McDougall, S. R., and Hamon, G. 2009. A Pore-Scale Modelling Approach to the Interpretation of Heavy Oil Pressure Depletion Experiments. J Pet Sci Eng 65 (1–2): 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2008.12.010.
Bora, R. 1998. Cold Production of Heavy Oil—An Experimental Investigation of Foamy Oil Flow in Porous Media. PhD dissertation, University of Calgary, Calgary (April 1988).
Brooks, R. H. and Corey, A. T. 1964. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media and Their Relation to Drainage Design. Trans ASAE 7 (1): 26–28. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.40684.
Chang, J. and Ivory, J. 2013. Field-Scale Simulation of Cyclic Solvent Injection (CSI). J Can Pet Technol 52 (4): 251–265. SPE-157804-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/157804-PA.
Coello, C. A. C., Pulido, G. T., and Lechuga, M. S. 2004. Handling Multiple Objectives With Particle Swarm Optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8 (3): 256–279. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2004.826067.
Dake, L. P. 1998. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, seventeenth edition. The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Dong, M. and Huang, S. 2006. Methane Pressure-Cycling Process With Horizontal Wells for Thin Heavy-Oil Reservoirs. SPE Res Eval & Eng 9 (2): 154–164. SPE-88500-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/88500-PA.
George, D. S., Hayat, O., and Kovscek, A. R. 2005. A Microvisual Study of Solution-Gas-Drive Mechanisms in Viscous Oils. J Pet Sci Eng 46 (1–2): 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2004.08.003.
Han, G., Bruno, M., and Dusseault, M. B. 2007. How Much Oil You Can Get From CHOPS. J Can Pet Technol 46 (4): 24–32. PETSOC-07-04-02. https://doi.org/10.2118/07-04-02.
Jia, X., Zeng, F., and Gu, Y. 2015. Gasflooding-Assisted Cyclic Solvent Injection (GA-CSI) for Enhancing Heavy Oil Recovery. Fuel 140 (1): 344–353. https://doi.org/10.2118/170157-MS.
Kamp, A. M. and Joseph, R. B. 2001. A New Modeling Approach for Heavy Oil Flow in Porous Media. Presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Porlamar, Margarita Island, Venezuela, 12–14 March. SPE-69720-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/69720-MS.
Kraus, W. P., McCaffrey, W. J., and Boyd, G. W. 1993. Pseudo-Bubble Point Model for Foamy Oils. Presented at the Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, 9–12 May. PETSOC-93-45. https://doi.org/10.2118/93-45.
Kumar, R., Pooladi-Darvish, M., and Okazawa, T. 2002. Effect of Depletion Rate on Gas Mobility and Solution Gas Drive in Heavy Oil. SPE J. 7 (2): 213–220. SPE-78438-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/78438-PA.
Li, S., Li, Z., Lu, T. et al. 2012. Experimental Study on Foamy Oil Flow in Porous Media With Orinoco Belt Heavy Oil. Energy Fuels 26 (10): 6332–6342. https://doi.org/0.1021/ef301268u.
Liu, X. and Zhao, G. 2005. A Fractal Wormhole Model for Cold Heavy Oil Production. J Can Pet Technol 44 (9): 31–36. PETSOC-05-09-03. https://doi.org/10.2118/05-09-03.
Lu, T., Li, Z., Li, S. et al. 2013. Performances of Different Recovery Methods for Orinoco Belt Heavy Oil After Solution Gas Drive. Energy Fuels 27 (6): 3499–3507. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef400511s.
Ma, H., Huang, D., Yu, G. et al. 2017. Combined Cyclic Solvent Injection (CSI) and Waterflooding (WF) in the Post-Cold Heavy Oil Production With Sand (CHOPS) Reservoirs. Energy Fuels 31 (1): 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b02596.
Maini, B. B. 2001. Foamy-Oil Flow. J Pet Technol 53 (10): 54–64. SPE-68885-JPT. https://doi.org/10.2118/68885-JPT.
Moulu, J. C. 1989. Solution-Gas Drive: Experiments and Simulation. J Pet Sci Eng 2 (4): 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0920-4105(89)90011-9.
Rangriz Shokri, A. and Babadagli, T. 2016. Field Scale Modeling of CHOPS and Solvent/Thermal Based Post CHOPS EOR Applications Considering Non-Equilibrium Foamy Oil Behavior and Realistic Representation of Wormholes. J Pet Sci Eng 137 (1): 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.11.026.
Sarma, H. and Maini, B. B. 1992. Role of Solution Gas in Primary Production of Heavy Oils. Presented at the SPE Latin America Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, 8–11 March. SPE-23631-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/23631-MS.
Shahvali, M. and Pooladi-Darvish, M. 2009. Dynamic Modelling of Solution-Gas Drive in Heavy Oils. J Can Pet Technol 48 (12): 39–46. SPE-132158-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/132158-PA.
Sheng, J. J., Hayes, R. E., Maini, B. B. et al. 1999b. Modelling Foamy Oil Flow in Porous Media. Transp Porous Media 35 (2): 227–258. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006523526802.
Sheng, J. J., Maini, B. B., Hayes, R. E. et al. 1997. Experimental Study of Foamy Oil Stability. J Can Pet Technol 36 (4): 31–37. PETSOC-97-04-02. https://doi.org/10.2118/97-04-02.
Sheng, J. J., Maini, B. B., Hayes, R. E. et al. 1999a. Critical Review of Foamy Oil Flow. Transp Porous Media 35 (2): 157–187. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006575510872.
Shi, Y., Li, X., and Yang, D. 2016. Nonequilibrium Phase Behavior of Alkane Solvent(s)–CO2–Heavy Oil Systems Under Reservoir Conditions. Ind Eng Chem Res 55 (10): 2860–2871. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04831.
Shu, W. R. 1984. A Viscosity Correlation for Mixtures of Heavy Oil, Bitumen, and Petroleum Fractions. SPE J. 24 (3): 277–282. SPE-11280-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/11280-PA.
Smith, G. E. 1988. Fluid Flow and Sand Production in Heavy-Oil Reservoirs Under Solution-Gas Drive. SPE Prod Eng 3 (2): 169–180. SPE-15094-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/15094-PA.
Talabi, O. and Pooladi-Darvish, M. 2004. A Simulator for Solution-Gas Drive in Heavy Oils. J Can Pet Technol 43 (4): 31–38. PETSOC-04-04-02. https://doi.org/10.2118/04-04-02.
Tang, G. Q. and Firoozabadi, A. 2005. Effect of GOR, Temperature, and Initial Water Saturation on Solution-Gas Drive in Heavy-Oil Reservoirs. SPE J. 10 (1): 34–43. SPE-71499-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/71499-PA.
Tang, G. Q. and Firoozabadi, A. 2006. Gas- and Liquid-Phase Relative Permeabilities for Cold Production From Heavy-Oil Reservoirs. SPE Res Eval & Eng 6 (2): 70–80. SPE-83667-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/83667-PA.
Wang, J., Yuan, Y., Zhang, L. et al. 2009. The Influence of Viscosity on Stability of Foamy Oil in the Process of Heavy Oil Solution Gas Drive. J Pet Sci Eng 66 (1–2): 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2009.01.007.
Wong, R. C. K. and Maini, B. B. 2007. Gas Bubble Growth in Heavy Oil-Filled Sand Packs Under Undrained Unloading. J Pet Sci Eng 55 (3–4): 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2006.08.006.
Yadali Jamaloei, B., Dong, M., and Mahinpey, N. 2012. Enhanced Cyclic Solvent Process (ECSP) for Heavy Oil and Bitumen Recovery in Thin Reservoirs. Energy Fuels 26 (5): 2865–2874. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef300152b.
