0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
47 Ansichten14 Seiten
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE / DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 19-23April2008. The high recovery performance of SAGD makes it a popular option for these non-conventional oil resources. The use of non-thermal processes involving CO 2 as a miscible or immiscible gas phase in combination with steam is considered as a viable alternative.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE / DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 19-23April2008. The high recovery performance of SAGD makes it a popular option for these non-conventional oil resources. The use of non-thermal processes involving CO 2 as a miscible or immiscible gas phase in combination with steam is considered as a viable alternative.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE / DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 19-23April2008. The high recovery performance of SAGD makes it a popular option for these non-conventional oil resources. The use of non-thermal processes involving CO 2 as a miscible or immiscible gas phase in combination with steam is considered as a viable alternative.
Performance Analysis of SAGD Wind-Down Process with CO
2 Injection A.S. Bagci, SPE, S. Olushola, and E. Mackay, SPE, Heriot-Watt University Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 1923April2008.
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
Thermal recovery methods involving steam injection have long been considered as an effective means of extracting heavy oil resources. In addition, the high recovery performance of SAGD makes it a popular option for these non-conventional oil resources. Steam processes are energy intensive and result in generation of emissions which are detrimental to humankind and the environment. The use of non-thermal processes involving CO 2 as a miscible or immiscible gas phase in combination with steam for heavy oil recovery is considered as a viable alternative to limit the drawbacks of steam generation. These processes have the capability to enhance oil recovery through CO 2 utilization during production and also provide an avenue to dispose CO 2 after production. Numerical simulation studies have been carried out utilizing STARS (a three phase, multi- components reservoir simulator) to optimize a baseline SAGD process and wind-down process with CO 2 Injection. The baseline process was operated until maturity then CO 2 injection was used to initiate wind-down after 4, 6 and 8 years of a 12 year production operation. Following each of the wind-down processes, CO 2 disposal was undertaken for 25 years and the storage potential evaluated. The baseline SAGD process had a recovery factor of 76%. The SAGD wind-down processes with CO 2 injection after 4, 6 and 8 years had recovery factors of 54%, 77% and 79% respectively. This and other parameters proved the feasibility of SAGD wind-down process with CO 2 injection and its potential to enhance oil recovery.
Introduction Heavy oil, extra heavy oil and bitumen resources (generally referred to as heavy crude oil) account for most of the worlds oil-in-place. A vast amount of these non-conventional oil resources are deposited in Venezuela, Canada, USA and China. Some estimates expect Alberta, Canadas heavy oil sands production to exceed 1.2 million bbl/day in the near future. Recoverable bitumen reserves in Alberta are estimated at 300 billion bbl. In Venezuela, Orinoco tar sands could be producing 600,000 bbl/day and it contains about 300 billion bbl of recoverable heavy oil and EOR reserves. In China, CNPC produces about 150,000 bbl/day of heavy crude and it has about 8 billion bbl of heavy oil reserves. USA has 20-25 billion barrels on the North Slope of Alaska. As global energy demand continues to rise and production of conventional oil declines, further development of heavy oil and oil sands (bitumen, sand, clay and water) recovery processes and technologies is integral to meeting future energy requirements. While conventional oil is easily extracted from the ground by drilling wells into formations bearing light and medium density oil which flow under natural reservoir pressures, heavy oils and oil sands require surface mining or in-situ techniques which reduce oil viscosity and increase its mobility using thermal or non-thermal processes. Thermal heavy oil recovery processes include Steam Flooding, Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS), Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) and Toe-to-Heel Air Injection (THAI). Examples of non-thermal methods are Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS) and Vapour Extraction Processes (VAPEX). Thermal methods achieve high oil recovery but are characterized by excessive energy consumption and CO 2 emissions. Non-thermal methods on the other hand, do not achieve as much recovery as thermal processes but are usually less energy intensive and result in lower CO 2 emissions. Improved recovery efficiency can be achieved by combining thermal and non-thermal processes. The resulting processes are referred to as hybrid processes. Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is a promising recovery process for producing heavy oils and bitumen resources. The method ensures both a stable displacement of steam and economical rates by using gravity as the driving force and a pair of horizontal wells for injection/production. In the SAGD process, this is achieved by drilling a pair of horizontal wells located at a short distance one above the other. Steam is injected into the upper well and hot fluids are produced from the lower well. This progressively creates a steam chamber, which develops by condensing steam at the chamber boundary 2 SPE 113234 and gives latent energy to the surrounding reservoir. Heated oil and water are drained by gravity along the chamber walls of the production well [1,2,3,4] . Figure 1 shows a vertical section through a rising steam chamber. During the rise period, the oil production rate increases steadily until the steam chamber reaches the top of the reservoir. SAGD with horizontal wells not only offset the effect of very high viscosity by providing extended contact or by heating but also maintain the necessary drive needed to move the oil, as the reservoir becomes depleted. A steam-assisted gravity drainage process also maintains reservoir drive and allows high recoveries. However, because of their considerable heat requirements, these processes are limited in their economic use to higher quality reservoirs [5] . In SAGD, horizontal wells are usually employed as injectors as well as for producers although it is possible to use multiple vertical injectors [6] . The SAGD process is characterized mainly by gravity drainage. The higher steam pressure allows shorter breakthrough time from the injection well to the production well, and higher spread rate of the steam chamber because higher-pressure drop between two wells may cause driving force for moving oil. Thus pushing effect or moving oil caused by pressure difference between two wells should be suppressed as little as possible especially for laboratory experiments with scaled model. It is generally believed that the increase in the atmospheric concentration of green house gases (GHGs) such as CO 2 , methane and nitrous oxide over the last hundred years provides a real threat to the environment [7] . There is an onus to develop creative methods of dealing with GHG emissions. It is possible to use GHGs for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and store them in depleted oil and gas fields. CO 2 has a high absorption capacity and a long atmospheric lifetime and is considered as a major cause of global warming. CO 2 is also favored for enhanced oil recovery because it significantly reduces oil viscosity and improves its flow rate. The use of CO 2 for heavy oil recovery provides an opportunity to enhance oil recovery and provides a solution to growing energy demand. Simultaneously, it supports commitments to reduce GHG emissions. The advantage of the SAGD process is its high recovery and oil production rate. However, the high production rate is associated with excessive energy comsumption, CO 2 generation, and post-production water treatment [8] . In the past several years, modifications have been proposed to improve SAGDs energy efficiency, either through injection of non-condensable gas (CO 2 , CH 4 ) with steam for reducing heat loss or through injection of solvents and steam together for increasing production rate [9] . The injection of non-condensable gas (CO 2 , CH 4 , C 2 H 4 , etc.) is intended to reduce heat loss to the overburden, and therefore, improve SOR. With this idea, the SAGD wind-down process has been developed. At a certain stage of the SAGD operation, as instantaneous SOR increases, there is no economic benefit to continue pure steam injection. At this stage, a wind-down process can be started to utilize energy in place and continue oil production. Previous experimental and numerical simulation studies showed that a co-injection of steam and non-condensable gas gave the best oil recoveries. In SAGD wind-down process, steam injection was stopped after a certain amount of steam injection and nitrogen or non-condensable gas injection commenced as a SAGD wind-down process. At the early stages of the wind-down process, gas production was negligible. Almost all injected gas was used to maintain pressure, compensating the steam condensation due to heat loss. For reducing the cost, the injection of CO 2 as a non-condensable gas appears to be an attractive alternative. The advantage of this low cost alternative is that the solubility of CO 2 in heavy oils is significantly higher than that of methane. In this study, SAGD wind-down process with CO 2 injection was investigated by using numerical simulation method. The effects of steam injection temperatures and steam injection rates on heavy oil recovery in a base SAGD process for comparison. Optimum parameters were combined to develop a base SAGD model and injection pressure was used to optimize SAGD wind-down process with CO 2 injection. The effect of CO 2 injection on SAGD wind-down process at diffeent injection time periods was investigated. Finally, the storage capacity for CO 2 after 25 years of disposal in the depleted reservoir was evaluated for each of the wind-down processes.
Literature Survey
Butler and Stephens [1] reported pioneering work on steam assisted gravity drainage. The important concept of oil displacement through a thin boundary layer next to an expanding steam chamber was introduced. They further reported experimental data as well as a semi analytical numerical solution. Their laboratory experimental data are in fairly good agreement with their theoretical solution. Their results indicate that for maximum oil production efficiency, a continuous steam injection and continuous oil drainage process is required. However, for the fractured reservoir [10] , on the other hand, concluded that cyclic steam stimulation, using a horizontal well, is the best production technique for fractured reservoirs. They also reported that vertical fractures are not ideal for steam flooding if horizontal wells are used for production. J oshi and Therlkeld [2] conducted experimental studies on oil production with thermally aided gravity drainage using horizontal wells and evaluated the effects of various well configuration schemes and vertical fractures. The high initial oil recovery with vertical fractures helped to improve the economics of the SAGD process. Griffin and Trofimenkoff [11] extended a theory for steam injection from a vertical well situated above the horizontal production well and presented laboratory results in support of this theory. Both low-pressure visual models and high-pressure models of steam assisted gravity drainage produce experiments showed a good agreement with the theory. Low-pressure models show that the theory developed by Butler and co-workers [1,12] accurately predicts oil production rate and analyses the effects of oil viscosity on production rate. The scaled models indicate that the process has a long life span and the steam SPE 113234 3 override and subsequent overburden heat loss is not as great as initially indicated by the proposed theory. J oshi [13] reported results on using SAGD with vertical and horizontal injectors. He found that vertical injectors with a horizontal producer gave faster recovery than using a horizontal injector-horizontal producer in reservoirs with shale barriers. He also indicated that vertical fractures perpendicular to a horizontal injector improved oil recovery rate as compared with a horizontal injector/horizontal producer. Yang and Butler [12] also studied two types of reservoir homogeneities; first, reservoirs with thin shale layers and second, reservoirs with layers of differing permeability. They found that a short horizontal barrier does not significantly affect the general performance of the SAGD process. A long barrier however, decreases the production rate. Faster production was noticed when a higher permeability layer located above a lower permeability layer than a lower permeability layer located above a higher permeability layer. The vertical well spacing between injection and production wells is the most important factor for determining the oil production rate. Sasaki et al. [14] reported that the initial stage of production (or vertical rise of the steam chamber) was observed to be sensitive to the location of the steam injector. The oil production rate increased when the vertical well spacing became larger, but the breakthrough time increased with increasing well spacing. Thus, the vertical well spacing could be used as a governing factor for evaluating production rate and lead-time during the initial stage of the SAGD process. Butler and Stephens [1] ; Butler [4] and Sugianto and Butler [15] reported similar performance based on reservoir thickness, these works focused on the expansion of the steam chamber after it arrives at the top of the reservoir. In summary, the oil production rate increased with increasing vertical spacing between two wells, but the lead-time to start oil production by gravity drainage delayed. Ong and Butler [16] described an analysis of pressure drop along the horizontal well bore for vertical injectors/horizontal producers. They showed that the pressure drop in the well bore is to cause a slope in the steam chamber along the well. Different methods of heating the well bore to reduce the pressure drop were considered, such as indirect heating (circulating steam in the producer). Nasr et al. [17] provided an in depth analysis of the SAGD process using numerical and experimental tools. They performed two-dimensional scaled gravity drainage experiments designed to represent heavy/extra heavy oil reservoirs, were used to calibrate the thermal reservoir simulator STARS. They made visual observations of the development of the steam chamber during the experiments and compared to numerical model predictions. The numerical simulations performed on the source/sink visualization configuration illustrate that the use of numerical, experimental and analytical modelling the gravity drainage process to learn more about the complexities of the process. Chow and Butler [18] investigated the feasibility using a commercial CMG simulator (STARS) to history match the SAGD process, particularly the spreading steam chamber phase and the rising steam chamber phase. The linear relative permeability curve was employed to simulate the experimental production results. The numerical results agreed reasonably well with the measured data for cumulative oil production, recovery percentage and temperature profiles in the model at different times. Sasaki et al. [19] showed the vertical rise of the steam chamber was less than that predicted by the conventional SAGD numerical model. Also, the lead-time required to generate a steam chamber in near breakthrough condition between two wells prior to the vertical expansion of the steam chamber was long. It was hypotized that the conventional SAGD process could be modified to first shorten the time period prior to the vertical rise of the steam chamber, and second enhance the expansion rate of the steam chamber in consideration of fluids phenomena at the chamber interface [20] . Law [21] studied SAGD wind-down processes with CO 2 , flue gas and N 2 injections for pressure maintenance during the later stage of the SAGD process in an Athabasca bitumen reservoir. The oil recovery performance during the wind-down period with pure CO 2 injection was slightly better than those with other gas injections such as flue gas (i.e. a mixture of nitrogen and CO 2 and pure N 2 mainly because solubility of CO 2 in the oil results in the reduction of viscosity of the oil phase. CO 2 balance indicated that CO 2 stored during SAGD wind-down processes with CO 2 or CO 2 -enriched flue gas injection was less than the CO 2 emitted from steam generation during the initial SAGD period. CO 2 or CO 2 -enriched flue gas storage process in SAGD depleted reservoirs is a short-life process because near maximum storage capacity can be reached within one year of CO 2 or CO 2 -enriched flue gas injection after the oil production process has terminated. Zhao et al. [22] carried out experiments and numerical simulation runs to study a gas injection SAGD wind-down process. The experimental results showed that an incremental oil recovery could be recovered by a non-condesable gas injection process following the SAGD process. Temperature measurements demonstrated that the hot gas chamber continued to grow even after steam injection stopped. This period represents the most effective period regarding oil recovery for the wind-down process. Gas concentration profiles indicated that the gas was concentrated in the region where oil saturation was experiencing large changes.
Numerical Simulation of SAGD Wind-Down Process with CO 2 Injection The thermal reservoir simulator, STARS (2006) [23] developed by the Computer Modelling Group (CMG) was used in this study.
Reservoir Characteristics and Initial Conditions
The reservoir characteristics used in this study are based on the Abathasca oil sands located in northern, Alberta, Canada. Depth to top of reservoir: 900 ft 4 SPE 113234 Thickness of reservoir: 150 ft Porosity: 35% Initial pressure: 220 psi Initial temperature: 50 o F Horizontal absolute permeability: 6000 mD Vertical absolute permeability: 3000 mD Initial Saturations: 85% oil, 15% water and 0% gas
Rock Properties
The rock properties are also based on the Abathasca oil sands. Effective rock compressibility: 4.67 x 10 -7
Rock heat capacity: 35 (Btu/ft 3 -F) Rock Thermal Conductivity: 24 Btu/ft-day-F Overburden and underburden heat capacity: 35Btu/ft 3 -F Overburden thermal conductivity: 24 Btu/ft-day-F Underburden thermal conductivity: 4 Btu/ft-day-F Water, oil and gas phase thermal conductivity: 24 Btu/ft-day-F
Fluid Properties
Water, heavy oil and CO 2 are the three components involved in this study. Most water properties are based on default (=0) in STARS simulator. Alberta Research Council (ARC) parameters have been used for heavy oil (8.6 o API) and CO 2 . Heavy oil and CO 2 properties are described as follows: Oil molecular weight: 500 lb/lbmol Oil compressibility: 4.56 x 10 -6
Oil thermal expansion coefficient: 3.374 x 10 -4
o F -1
First coefficient of gas and liquid heat capacity: 7 Btu/lbmol-F First coefficient of liquid heat capacity: 218.2 Btu/lbmol-F CO 2 molecular weight: 44 lb/lbmol CO2 thermal expansion coefficient: 3.374 x 10-4 o F -1
Heavy oil viscosity and viscosity of CO 2 saturated heavy oil are based on Alberta Research Council (ARC) correlation (Table 1). Equilibrium ratios (K-values) for gas-liquid and liquid-liquid phase equilibrium were generated from Computer Modelling Groups (CMGs) WinProp software. This is an equation of state (EOS) multiphase equilibrium property package and was used to produce K-values for CO 2 in oil phase, water in oil phase and CO 2 in water phase between a pressure and temperature range of 20-1420 psi and 25-740 o F. Water-oil and gas-oil relative permeability curves for Abathasca type reservoirs are utilized in this study (Tables 2 and 3).
Reservoir Simulation Model
Simulation Grid The dimensions of the prototype reservoir are 310 ft wide, 1500 ft long and 150 ft thick (310 ft x 1500ft x 150 ft). For this study a homogenous model was used. It was desired to simulate a SAGD pattern using a sufficient number of grid blocks that will provide results with sufficient accuracy without overly long simulation times. A three dimensional (3-D) Cartesian grid (10x150x10) with 4650 active cells was used for the simulations. The K-direction of the model is down. The utilized grid has a gross volume of 6.98 x 10 7 ft 3 and formation pore volume of 2.44 x 10 7 ft 3 . The original oil-in-place (OOIP) is 3.72 MMSTB.
Well Configuration A pair of standard SAGD horizontal wells was used for the simulations. The injection well Injector was located 30 ft above the production well Producer which was 25 ft from the bottom of the reservoir. The wells each had a radius of 0.3 ft and lengths of 1500 ft. The wells were centrally located in the width of the model. This was to enable the full SAGD pattern to be considered in the simulations.
Well and Recurrent Data Some parameters in the well and recurrent data used in the simulations were unchanged for the SAGD baseline and SAGD wind-down processes with CO 2 injection. To produce 100% quality steam in an industrial boiler designed to produce saturated steam is rarely possible and the steam will usually contain droplets of water due to turbulence and splashing as SPE 113234 5 bubbles of steam break through the water surface. It is anticipated that there will be additional reduction in the quality of steam due to heat losses in piping infrastructure. Therefore, for all cases involving steam injection, a steam quality of 80% was used. This was represented in the simulations as the cold water equivalent (CWE) of steam. A maximum steam production rate of 5000 STB/day was used in all cases. An initial differential of 250 psi between the bottom-hole pressure of the injector and producer was used to commence all the simulations. An adequate pressure differential between the wells induces a gentle and uniform drive, accelerating start up and adding a convective component to the heat transfer process without inducing a preferential flow path between the wells [24] . This differential encourages early maturity of the SAGD steam chamber. The injector and producer well have no skin factor (S=0) and have been completed along their entire length. A fracture gradient of 1 psi/ft that relates the minimum principal stress to the weight of the overburden was used when considering operating parameters [21] . This makes the fracture pressure within the reservoir model range from 900-1050 psi. It was intended to keep operating pressures at a maximum of about 90% of the lower limit of the range.
Optimization of SAGD Baseline Parameters
Steam Injection Temperature Steam injection temperatures of 440, 480, 520 and 560 o F were considered to determine the temperature that will optimize the SAGD process thermal efficiency and productivity. The simulations were carried out with maximum surface steam injection and liquid production rates of 4000 STB/day. Temperatures versus time profiles of the toe of the injection well (Figure 2) were used to assess the thermal efficiency of the steam injection temperatures. From the profiles it can be observed that the temperature at the toe of the injection well rises to about 175 o F in three years for a steam injection temperature of 440 o F and two years for a steam injection temperature of 480 o F. A steam injection temperature of 520 o F raised the temperature at the toe of the injection well to 200 o F in one year whilst a steam injection temperature of 560 o F attained the same temperature in slightly under a year. By a year and a half, steaminjection temperatures of 520 and 560 o F gave maximum temperatures of about 560 and 580 o F respectively. Maximum temperature at the toe for steam injection temperatures of 440 and 480 o F were attained after about four and three years respectively. The observed trend was an indication of superior thermal efficiency of steam injection temperatures of 520 and 560 o F. In addition to thermal efficiency, cumulative oil production after twelve years of operation was used as a measure of the productivity of the different steam injection temperatures. It can be observed that steam injection temperatures of 440 and 480 o F had a cumulative oil production of 2.69 and 2.75 MMSTB of oil after 12 years of production. Steam injection temperatures of 520 and 560 o F had the same cumulative oil production of 2.80 MMSTB. Furthermore, the pressure of saturated steam at 560 o F is above the fracture pressure range in the model. Steam injection temperature of 440 o F had a bottom-hole pressure of producer much lower than the reservoir pressure. As a result, steam injection temperatures of 440, 480 and 560 o F were discounted. Based on the choice of steam temperature of 520 o F, the bottom-hole pressure of the injector was set at 812 psi. The producer was operated at a minimum pressure of 562 psi.
Maximum Surface Steam Injection Rate Maximum surface steam injection rates of 2000, 4000, 8000 and 12000 STB/day were considered to determine an optimum rate to be used for steam injection in the simulations. Maximum surface liquid production rates identical to the maximum surface steam production rates were used in each simulation. Steam was injected at the optimum temperature of 520 o F. The cumulative oil production data after twelve years of production were plotted against the maximum surface steam injection rates (Figure 3). The cumulative oil productions were 2.07, 2.80, 2.79 and 2.78 MMSTB for steam surface injection rates of 2000, 4000, 8000 and 12000 STB/day respectively. The maximum surface steam injection rate at the point of inflexion on the curve was taken as the optimum rate. This corresponds to a rate of 5000 STB/day.
Optimization of SAGD Wind-Down with CO 2 Injection Parameters
Injection pressure was optimised for the SAGD wind-down process with CO 2 injection. Pressures of 500, 650 and 800 psi were considered. Injection pressures lower than 500 psi was not considered. The reason for this was to keep to the initial bottom-hole pressure differential limit of 250 psi whilst preventing operation of the producer at a pressure much lower than the initial reservoir pressure. Similarly, injection pressures above 800 psi were not considered to prevent the system from being exposed to pressures close to or exceeding the fracture pressure range in the model. SAGD wind-down process with CO 2 injection was initiated after four years in each case. The maximum surface liquid production rate corresponded to the value utilised in the SAGD baseline and all other parameter in the model remained constant. The cumulative oil production after twelve years was used as criteria for screening the options. The cumulative oil productions were 2.01, 1.87 and 1.74 MMSTB for CO 2 injection pressures of 500, 650 and 800 psi respectively. Based on the highest recovery after twelve years of production, an injection pressure of 500 psi was selected for wind-down process with CO 2 . The injector was operated at a bottom-hole pressure of 512 psi with the producer having a minimum bottom-hole pressure of 262 psi.
6 SPE 113234 Simulation Times In this study, the SAGD process is operated for 4380 days (12 Years). The SAGD wind-down process with CO 2
injection is initiated after maturity of the SAGD steam chamber at 1460 days (4 Years), 2190 days (6 Years) and 2920 days (8 Years). In each scenario, the wind-down process is followed by 9125 days (25 Years) of CO 2 injection for GHG disposal.
Simulation Results
The numerical simulation results for the SAGD baseline and wind-down processes followed by CO 2 disposal are as follows:
SAGD Baseline
Performance Parameters The SAGD baseline model had a cumulative oil production of 2.82 MMSTB of oil (76% recovery factor). This was accomplished with a cumulative steam injection of 7.82 MMSTB. The model had a cumulative steam-oil ratio (CSOR) of 2.77 which was a testament of the robust operation of the SAGD model (Table 4).
Average Temperature and Pressures Average temperature during SAGD operation was maintained around 56 o F for the first two years before rising steadily to 476 o F after 7 years. The average temperature remained within this range till after 8 years, rose to about 508 o F after 9 years before finally reaching about 513 o F after 12 years. The average pressure increased to 816 psi after three years and stayed within this range for the 12 years of production.
Liquid Rates The steam injection rate reached a maximum value of 4020 STB/day after 4 years of SAGD operation then began to decline until after 5 years when it reached a value of 3482 STB/day. The rate decreased slightly to 3401 STB/day after 6 years. After this time, it declined to 666 STB/day after 12 years. Oil production rate started to show a significant rise after 3 years up to a value of about 1487 STB/day after 4 years. The rate decreased to 1416 STB/day after 6 years before peaking at 1714 STB/day after 7 years. Beyond this time, the oil production rate declined.
Temperature and Oil Saturation Profiles The temperature profiles of the SAGD baseline show the steam chamber development and growth (Figure 4). The highest temperatures of between 474 and 521 o F existed in the depleted chamber. The temperature at the edge of heated oil ranged between 285 and 332 o F. After 6 years the steam chamber had grown to the edge of the model. The oil saturation profiles show a similar pattern to the temperature profiles which is an indication of depletion in the high temperature regions of the chamber (Figure 5).
SAGD Wind-Down Process with CO 2 Injection
Performance Parameters For SAGD wind-down processes with CO 2 injection after 4, 6 and 8 years, the cumulative oil productions were 2.01, 2.85 and 2.94 MMSTB (54%, 77% and 79% recovery). The cumulative steam injections were 2.82, 5.62 and 6.77 MMSTB for the wind-down processes after 4, 6 and 8 years. The cumulative steam-oil ratios (CSORs) were 1.40, 1.85 and 2.30 for the processes. During wind-down process, 445.51, 349.84 and 126.27 MMSCF of CO 2 was injected and after wind-down CO 2 -in-place was 424.03, 342.22 and 125.69 MMSCF for the processes after 4, 6 and 8 years. After 25 years CO 2 disposal, the CO 2 -in-place was 848.36, 811.79 and 662.39 MMSCF for wind-down after 4, 6 and 8 years (Table5).
Average Temperatures and Pressures Average temperature after SAGD wind-down with CO 2 injection was 178, 327 and 420 o F for wind-down initiated after 4, 6, and 8 years. The average pressure for the wind-down processes with CO 2 injection drops to about 500 psi when CO 2
injection is started.
Liquid and Gas Rates For wind-down with CO 2 injection after 4 years, oil production rate continually decreased from 1419 STB/day to about 71 STB/day after 12 years. Decline in oil production rate continued from the SAGD phase after wind-down processes with CO 2 injection after 6 and 8 years started. The decline in these cases was not as rapid as decline after 6 and 8 years in the SAGD baseline. This accounts for the increased productivity of the processes over the baseline. The gas injection rates rose and reached a peak two years after wind-down with CO 2 was initiated for the processes after 4 and 6 years. For wind-down with CO 2 injection after 8 years, CO 2 injection rate reached a maximum after three years. The maximum gas injection rates were 343658, 416947 and 169786 SCF/day for the wind-down processes after 4, 6 and 8 years. SPE 113234 7
Temperature and CO 2 Gas Mole Fraction Profiles The shape of the steam chamber is maintained for the wind-down processes (Figures 6, 7 and 8). For wind-down after 4 years, the temperature range of 145- 381 o F in the chamber is lower than that of SAGD baseline model. When CO 2 injection is commenced after 6 years, the steam chamber has already matured across the width of the model. The temperature range for the depleted chamber is 242-531 o F. For the wind-down process after 8 years, the temperature range in the depleted chamber is 381-523 o F. The CO 2 gas mole fraction range in the chamber ranged from 0.5-1.0 for wind-down process after 4 years (Figure 9). For this process, the highest and lowest mole fractions of CO 2 were at the edge regions of the chamber. This is an indication of CO 2 being dissolved in the region. The CO 2 gas mole fraction range for the wind-down process after 6 years showed a similar pattern (Figure 10). The range in this case was 0.3-1.0. For the wind-down process after 8 years, the same trend was observed with a range 0.1-0.5 (Figure 11).
Economic Worth
SAGD wind-down process with CO 2 injection opens up an avenue to reduce steam consumption for the SAGD process (reduce energy costs) and improve oil recovery. It also has the potential to reduce CO 2 emissions and levels. CO 2 disposal after production operations adds to this merit. The economic performance of SAGD process relies greatly on energy efficiency. The option of using CO 2 as a replacement for steam during the SAGD process will help to reduce the amount of steam utilized and have an a positive impact on energy costs. The potential for SAGD wind-down process with CO 2 injection to improve oil recovery during production decline can make the economics of SAGD more favourable. SAGD wind-down process with CO 2 injection and subsequent disposal of CO 2 can be considered as a carbon project. This implies that the project can receive funding from relevant authorities. The process can also help gain carbon credit. The sale of the gained carbon credit can help improve the economics of the integrated process.
Conclusions
The objective of this study included the investigation of the effects of steam injection temperatures and steam injection rates on heavy oil recovery in a SAGD process. The effects of wind-down with CO 2 injection on a SAGD process, at different CO 2
injection times, have also been evaluated. Storage capacity for CO 2 after 25 years of disposal has been estimated for each process. From the study the following conclusions have been made:
1. The combination of optimized parameters for SAGD results in an efficient operation of the process and achieves high oil recoveries.
2. For a SAGD process, steam injection temperature has a bearing on the amount of heavy oil recovered. Oil recovery increases with temperature until an optimum temperature is attained. Beyond this temperature the process becomes thermally inefficient. A high steam temperature causes a high rate of change of temperature within the system, but a lower steam temperature might match oil recovery performance.
3. Due to the pressures associated with steam at high temperatures, there is a limit to the temperature that can be used in the operation of SAGD process. This is due to the possibility of pressures within the system approaching or exceeding the fracture pressure within the formation.
4. For a SAGD process, oil recovery increases with steam injection rate, reaches an optimum rate then remains constant or declines. Beyond this point, additional utilization of resources is unnecessary.
5. For SAGD wind-down processes, better performance is achieved when the parameters associated with the wind- down process are optimized. This is preferable to carrying over operating parameters from the standard SAGD phase. The improved performance achieved from this activity provides a good basis for comparison of the wind- down process with standard SAGD process.
6. For wind-down with CO 2 injection, the oil recovery increases inversely with pressure. Lower pressures may be prevented by the bottom-hole pressure differential constraints.
7. Oil recovery for SAGD wind-down with CO 2 injection can enhance oil recovery when applied at the right stage of the SAGD process.
8. CO 2 storage capacity after wind-down processes with CO 2 increases with the amount of oil left in place. This indicates the additional storage potential underlined by the solubility of CO 2 in oil.
8 SPE 113234 Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to CMG for using STARS and WinProp softwares for simulation runs.
References
1. Butler, R. M. and Stephens, D.J .: The Gravity Drainage of Steam Heated to Parallel Horizontal Wells, J . Can. Pet. Tech., (April-June, 1981), 90-96.
2. J oshi, S.D. and Threlkeld, C.B.: Laboratory Studies of Thermally Aided Gravity Drainage Using Horizontal Wells, AOSTRA J . of Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, (1985), 11-19.
3. J oshi, S.D.: A Review of Thermal Oil Recovery Using Horizontal Wells, IN SITU, Vol. 2, No. 1, (1987), 211- 259. 4. Butler, R.M.: Rise of Interfering Steam Chambers, J . Can. Pet. Tech., Vol. 26, No. 3, (1987), 70-75.
6. Butler, R. M.: Horizontal Wells for the Recovery of Oil, Gas and Bitumen, Petroleum Society Monograph No. 2, CIM, Calgary, Alberta., (1994).
7. Talbi, K. and Maini, B.: Evaluation of CO 2 Based Vapex Process for the Recovery of Bitumen from Tar Sand Reservoirs, SPE Paper 84868, presented at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20-21 October 2003.
8. Zhao, L.: Steam Alternating Solvent Process, SPE Paper 86957, presented at SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and Western regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, 16-18 March 2004.
9. J iang, Q., Butler, R. and Yee, C.T.,: The Steam and Gas Push (SAGP)-2: Mechanism Analysis and Physical Model Testing, Paper 98-43, Proceedings of the Petroleum Society 49 th Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, J une 8-10, 1998.
10. Huygen, H.H.A. and Black, J .B.: Steaming through Horizontal Wells and Fractures-a Scaled Model Test, Second European Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Paris, (November, 1982).
11. Griffin, P.J . and Trofimenkoff, P.N.: Laboratory Studies of the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Process, AOSTRA J . of Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, (1986), 197-203.
12. Yang, G. and Butler, R. M.: Effects of Reservoir Heterogeneties on Heavy Oil Recovery by Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage, 40 th Annual Technical Meeting of CIM, Banff, (1989).
13. J oshi, S.D. : A Laboratory Study of Thermal Oil Recovery Using Horizontal Wells, SPE Paper 14916, presented at the 1986 SPE/DOE 5 th Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, (April 20-23, 1986).
14. Sasaki, K., Akibayashi, S. Yazawa, N., Doan, Q. and Farouq Ali, S.M.: Numerical and Experimental Modelling of the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Process, J . Can. Pet. Tech. Vol. 40, No. 1, (J anuary 2001), 44-50.
15. Sugianto, S. and Butler, R. M.: The Production of Conventional Heavy Oil Reservoirs with Bottom Water Using Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage, Paper 89-40-33, The Petroleum Society of CIM, (1990).
16. Ong, T.S. and Butler, R.M.: Wellbore Flow Resistance in Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage, J . Can. Pet. Tech., Vol. 29, No. 2, (March-April, 1990), 49-55.
17. Nasr, T.N. Golbeck, H. and Lorimer, S.: Analysis fo the Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Process Using Experimental/Numerical Tools, SPE Paper 37116, 1996 SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Canada, (18-20 November 1996).
18. Cnow, L. and Butler, R.M.: Numerical Simulation of the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Process (SAGD), J . Can. Pet. Tech., (June 1996), Vol. 35, No.6, 55-62. SPE 113234 9 19. Sasaki, K., Akibayashi, S., Yazawa, N. and Kaneko, F.: Experimental Modeling of the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Process-Enhancing SAGD Performance with Periodic Stimulation of the Horizontal Producer, SPE J ournal, (March, 2001), 189-197.
20. Sasaki, K., Akibayashi, S., Yazawa, N. and Kaneko, F.: Microscopic Visualization with High Resolution Optical- Fiber Scope at Steam Chamber Interface on Initial Stage of SAGD Process, SPE Paper 75241, presented at the SPE/DOE Improved il Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, (13-17 April 2002).
21. Law, D. H.-S.: Disposal of Carbon Dioxide, a Greenhouse Gas, for Pressure Maintenance in a Steam-Based Thermal Process for Recovery of Heavy Oil and Bitumen SPE Paper 86958, presented at SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, 16- 18 March 2004.
22. Zhao, L., Law, D.H.-S., Nasr, T.N., Coates, R., Golbeck, H., Beaulieu, G. and Heck, G.: SAGD Wind-Down: Lab Test and Simulation, J ournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, J anuary 2005, Vol.44, no.1, 49-53.
23. STARS User Manual, Computer Modelling Group, Calgary, Canada, 2006.
24. Prada, J., Cunha, L., and Alhanati, F.: Impact of Operational Parameters and Reservoir Variables during the Startup Phase of a SAGD Process, SPE Paper 97918, presented at the 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, canada, 1-3 November 2005.
Table 1. Heavy Oil Viscosity Temperature ( o F) Heavy Oil Viscosity (cp) CO 2
Cumulative Oil Production (MMSTB) 2.82 Recovery Factor (%) 76.0 Cumulative Steam Injection (MMSTB) 7.82 Cumulative Steam Oil Ratio (CSOR) 2.77 Cumulative Water Production (MMSTB) 7.72
SPE 113234 11 Table 5: SAGD Wind-Down results
SAGD Wind-Down Process with CO 2 Injection 4 Years 6 Years 8 Years Cumulative Oil Production (MMSTB) 2.01 2.85 2.94 Recovery Factor (%) 54.0 77.0 79.0 Cumulative Steam Injection (MMSTB) 2.82 5.26 6.77 Cumulative Steam Oil Ratio (CSOR) 1.40 1.85 2.30 Cumulative Water Production (MMSTB) 3.02 5.47 6.86 Cumulative CO 2 Injection for Wind-Down (MMSCF) 445.51 349.84 126.27 Cumulative Gas Production (MMSCF) 21.48 7.26 0.58 CO 2 -in-place after SAGD Wind-Down (MMSCF) 424.03 342.22 125.69 CO 2 -in-place after 25 Years Disposal (MMSCF) 848.36 811.79 662.39
Steam flows to interface and condenses Heated oil flows to well Steam injection well Production well oil and condensate are drained continuously Oil reservoir
Figure 1. Schematic representation of SAGD process.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ti me (Years) T e m p e r a t u r e
( o F ) 440 oF 480 oF 520 oF 560 oF 0.00E+00 5.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.50E+06 2.00E+06 2.50E+06 3.00E+06 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Maxi mum Surface Steam Inj ecti on Rate (STB/day) C u m u l a t i v e
O i l
( S T B )
Figure 2. Temperature Profile at Toe of Injector. Figure 3. Optimum Steam Injection Temperature.
12 SPE 113234
Figure 4. Temperature Profile for SAGD Baseline.
Figure 5. Oil Saturation Profile for SAGD Baseline.
Figure 6. Temperature Profile for Wind-Down after 4 Years. SPE 113234 13
Figure 7. Temperature Profile for Wind-Down after 6 Years.
Figure 8. Temperature Profile for Wind-Down after 8 Years.
Figure 9. CO 2 Gas Mole Fraction Profiles for Wind-Down after 4 Years. 14 SPE 113234
Figure 10. CO 2 Gas Mole Fraction Profiles for Wind-Down after 6 Years.
Figure 11. CO 2 Gas Mole Fraction Profiles for Wind-Down after 8 Years.