CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER APPLIED TO EOR: HIGH

TEMPERATURE FLUID CIRCULATION FOR ENHANCING THE

RECOVERY OF HEAVY OIL
D. Testa, L. Carnelli, G. Corso, C. Lazzari, Eni - DR&D Direzione Research &
Technological Innovation, M. De Simoni, G. Sassi, Eni OPS Direzione Operations, A.
Tegami, Eni SEQS Safety, Environment, Quality and Sustainability
th

This paper was presented at the 12 Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy, March 25-27, 2015. It was
selected for presentation by OMC 2015 Programme Committee following review of information contained in the abstract submitted by
the author(s). The Paper as presented at OMC 2015 has not been reviewed by the Programme Committee.

ABSTRACT
Over the last decade there were new focuses for the use of renewable energies to enhance the
recovery of fossil fuels in a cleaner and effective manner. In this paper a technical-economical
feasibility study on the integration of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technology into the
enhanced recovery of heavy oil from complex field by thermal method is reported. A hot fluid
directly heated by solar energy is continuously circulated into a closed circuit through the reservoir
to increase and sustain the reservoir temperature. The aim is to increase the potential production
of unconventional reserves by lowering the oil viscosity. In the analyzed configuration, the closed
loop is positioned in a heating well separated by the production well. Size and geometry of the
circuit were optimized. A case study was chosen and the preliminary dimension and efficiency of
the solar plant as well as the expected increases on oil production were estimated for different
scenarios (different hot fluid temperatures, different percentages of the total thermal energy
supplied by the solar resource). The results showed that it is possible to greatly enhance the
recovery of heavy oil by this thermal method. Besides the estimated recovery is higher than those
achievable by electrical heating as it is possible to reach very high temperatures (390C) of the
circulating oil. This thermal method represents also an efficient exploitation of the solar energy for
EOR applications. From the economic point of view, the results are encouraging also if the
comparison with a fossil solution is very sensitive to the location of the plant (different direct solar
irradiance) and the gas price. As solar plant requires large land, for off-shore applications the
described thermal method is suitable only if a fossil fuel is employed to heat the oil.

INTRODUCTION
The present work deals with a preliminary technical and economical assessment concerning the
application of the CSP technology (Concentrating Solar Power) for EOR, by heating the reservoir
through a heat transfer fluid circulating in a closed loop which connects the solar field with the
heating wellbores.
A deep analysis on heat transfer rates between heating wells and reservoir stratification varying
several parameters allowed to identify the more appropriate scenarios. According to them a case
study has been selected.
Fluid dynamic simulations were performed to estimate the heat transfer efficiency by circulation of
hot synthetic oil in a closed system. It was subsequently estimated the expected increase of oil
production in several heating conditions by means of reservoir simulations.
Once the optimal operating parameters were defined to obtain a good heat transfer, it was possible
to evaluate the overall thermal power demand to design the solar field.
The final step of the study was the technical-economic evaluation with a preliminary estimate of
CAPEX and OPEX.
The solution was also compared with the electrical heating.
1

STATE OF THE ART AND ENI IDEA

The potential of concentrating solar power technologies for EOR is being investigating since the
end of 1970s. One of the earliest studies of this type was conducted by Exxon in its Edison oil field
in California with Foster Wheeler and Honeywell in 1979 [1].
Shell has been very active on thermal heating for EOR also sourced by solar energy and the main
results of those studies are reported in several patents published in the last decade. Simulations
and experimental tests showed increase in oil production up to 60% [2] with thermal heating
compared to cold production.
More recently pilot and demo plants entered in operation. An important initiative is the construction
and operation of the Coalinga Field demo plant in California by Chevron and BrightSource Energy
Inc. The 29 MWth plant generates steam to extract oil and water is heated by sun rays reflected
and concentrated toward a 98m solar tower by means of more than 7000 mirrors [3]. Solar energy
exploitation reduces natural gas consumption for steam production.

Fig 1: Coalinga demo plant [3].

In February 2011, GlassPoint unveiled its commercial solar enhanced oil recovery (EOR) project at
Berry Petroleums 21Z lease in Kern County, California. The system produces approximately 1
MMBtu per hour of solar heat by means of parabolic troughs enclosed in a greenhouse. They
preheat water to 190F used as feedwater for Berry Petroleums gas-fired steam generators [4].
A larger plant owned by Petroleum Development Oman (PDO) was built by Glasspoint in 2012 at
Amil West oil field. A 96m x 180m x 6m glasshouse protects 12 rows of parabolic troughs 178m
long and 6m large with a total mirror area of around 12800 m2. The 7MWth plant produces about 50
tons of steam per day at 312C and 100 bar with a gas saving of 47000 MMBtu/y [5].

Fig 2: Amil West plant [5].

Glasspoint technology drew the attention of Shell Technology Ventures which put into the company
a part of the 53M$ round C equity investment led by Oman'
s largest sovereign wealth fund and
other venture firms [6].
Another interesting technology is the one patented by Majus [7] and is mainly based on a unique
thermal insulation material which allows efficient hot oil circulation through a coiled tubing installed
in the well, to slowly warm up the reservoir in the vicinity of the drain and then decrease the
pressure drop in the reservoir as well as in the well drain itself. Majus has also developed a highly
insulated threaded connection tubing, called I-tubing and demonstrated its technology with two
pilot plants in Oman and Gabon. A part of the produced oil is heated only by fossil fuels and re2

injected into the reservoir in a L-shaped well where the horizontal section works as a heat
exchanger. It is an open loop with the hot oil pumped up again with the produced fluids.
This study deals with the application of CSP (parabolic trough technology) to heat a synthetic oil
which circulates in a closed loop with the insulated vertical section to reduce heat losses and the
horizontal section used to transfer heat to the produced oil by conduction.

Fig 3: CSP + wells configuration.

This configuration might be used where steam drive is not economical or not applicable (small
fields, peripheral wells, high pressure reservoirs, etc) and requests less energy consumption.
The closed loop allows to operate with a heat transfer fluid stable at high temperatures and no
extra oil and water have to be treated on surface.

HEAT TRANSFER ANALYSIS AND CASE-STUDY SELECTION

A deep analysis on heat transfer exchange between the heating well and the surrounding rock
levels was performed varying several parameters. Purpose of this preliminary analysis was the
identification of the optimal heating conditions and the successive selection of an appropriate case
study for technical and economical feasibility.
The heating well configuration is coaxial with the hot fluid sent to the formation through the inner
tube (tubing) and circulated back to the well head in the outer passage (annulus).

Fig 4: heating well configuration.

Vacuum insulated pipes were considered in calculations to estimate heat losses along vertical and
horizontal sections and softwares Olga and Wellcat were used for simulations. The preliminary
3

sensitivity analysis on vertical depth and on the horizontal well section length put in evidence the
following statements:
vertical depth is the most important parameter because it strongly affects heat losses in the
vertical section (see fig. 5);
excessive formation depth makes the application not viable because of unacceptable heat
losses and costs related to well completion;
in the vertical section both tubing and annulus must be insulated to minimise the heat
losses in the overburden and between the downward hot oil and the upward cold fluid;
in the horizontal section only tubing shall be insulated to obtain the maximum thermal
exchange efficiency;
a long horizontal section means large heat transfer area; efficiency increases nearly linearly
with drain length and has to be chosen after economical and technical optimization;
high thermal conductivity of the overburden has strong negative effects, especially when no
insulation is foreseen, because of high heat losses along the vertical section;
high thermal conductivity in the reservoir zone enhances the heat transfer between
synthetic oil and crude.
where

In the next figure is reported the heat transfer efficiency defined as

Preservoir is the thermal power transferred from the hot fluid to the reservoir and Plosses includes the
heat losses in the vertical section and the heat exchange between the hot downward oil and the
cold upward fluid.
Calculations were made considering a 7 kg/s flowrate, an oil temperature at well head equal to
370C, a tubing diameter of 1,992in and an annulus diameter of 4,67in.
!

"

# "

"$ %

# "

"$ %

""

Fig 5: heat transfer efficiency vs. depth.

CASE-STUDY SELECTION

Taking into account the results obtained with the preliminary analysis described above, a
case-study was selected to evaluate the application.
Table 1: main data concerning the selected case-study
Number of wells
16 production wells + 16 heating wells
Well depth
335 m
Oil density
8,4API
Oil viscosity
6000cP @47,2C and 40cP @150C
DNI
1383 kWh/m2/y
4

!'

! !
()

OPTIMAL OPERATING PARAMETERS

Applying the heat transfer studies to the case-study, the optimal operating parameters were
chosen to have an efficient heating.
In particular, the heat transfer fluid (HTF) flowrate and inlet temperature were investigated:
flowrate range: 0,510 kg/s;
inlet HTF temperature: 200C (for comparison with electrical heating);
inlet HTF temperature: 390C (maximum operating temperature for synthetic oils).
The optimal flowrate depends on several parameters (insulation, depth, piping diameter, etc)
however heating exchange tends to reach a plateau for high flow rates. As depicted in figure 6, (for
this specific case) above a flowrate of 5,5 kg/s there are not relevant enhancements for the
heating process. Moreover higher flowrates mean a significant increase of pressure drop in the
closed loop raising costs for pumping and pipe materials.

,-

&

,-

!'

+%)

Fig 6: Thermal power to formation vs. oil flowrate at various inlet temperatures.
Once the optimal operating conditions had been defined, it was estimated the average power
supply to the formation in 25-years long period. This datum is one of the input for reservoir
simulations to calculate the additional oil production with heating.

RESERVOIR SIMULATION AND ADDITIONAL OIL PRODUCTION

Reservoir simulations were performed with STARS.
The simulation of thermal recovery methods (such as steam injection or down hole heating
methods) requires a very fine grid, so a small sector model was extracted from the full field model
of the reservoir chosen as case-study.
The sector grid block size is 25x25x7 mt while the optimal grid block size for the well block is 3
meters along well direction.
Two different heating configurations were considered: one method is the electrical heating with
electric resistances along the production well; the other assumes to circulate the heat transfer oil in
an upper heating well and produce from a lower well (fig. 7).

Fig 7: hot oil recirculation: well configuration and temperature around well.
The production well is situated about 5 meter below the heating well in order to exploit also the
gravity driving force.
Several heating conditions were investigated:
continuous heating (24h/24h) assuming a fossil fuel back-up to solar energy;
intermittent heating (12h/24h) with solar energy only;
continuous heating (24h/24h) with fossil fuel only, for comparison.
In case the power input solely came from solar energy, this would be available only 12 hours per
day. To determine if there could be anyway an advantage a simulation was done with an input
power of 300 W/m supplied for 12 hours a day while the well kept on producing. The simulation
was carried out only for 5 years since the computational time was otherwise excessive.
Table 2: additional oil production
Cold production (as reference)

Diathermic oil: 300 W/m; Tmax=390C

Diathermic oil: 300 W/m; Tmax=390C 12h/24h (*)
Diathermic oil: 300 W/m; Tmax=200C
Diathermic oil: 300 W/m; Tmax=200C 12h/24h (*)

+41,4%
+28,1%
+22,3%
+16%

Electrical heating: 200 W/m; Tmax=200C

Electrical heating: 300 W/m; Tmax=200C
Electrical heating: 300 W/m; Tmax=200C 12h/24h (*)
(*) based on 5-y simulations

+23.4%
+25%
+18.4%

Considering 5 years of simulation, for intermittent heating the energy consumption is 50% less than
continuous case while additional oil production is about the 70%. This means the most convenient
way to heat the formation is continuously with fossil fuel back-up. Otherwise, if only solar energy is
used, it is more convenient the intermittent heating without storage.
The most relevant result is that hot oil permits much higher additional oil production than electrical
heating because higher operating temperature facilitates reservoir warm-up.

SCENARIOS FOR SOLAR FIELD DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Thermal power needs, calculated through heat transfer simulations, have been used to design the
solar field and plant equipments. Different scenarios were considered to complete the assessment
with all the possible options. Synthetic oil is heated by solar energy passing through the solar field
and/or natural gas burning passing through a vertical tube gas heater.
Hot oil circulation was also compared with electrical heating, as mentioned above.
A schematic representation summarizes all the scenarios:

Solar field
19 % Sun + 81% natural gas
30 % Sun + 70% natural gas
100 % Sun (only 12h/24h heating)
100% natural gas (24/24h heating)

Hot oil circulation

Electrical heating

Production well with electrical

resistances
+
Organic Rankine Cycle

2 wells
(production well + heating well)

Note: Electricity generated by a gas engine

for case-study 100% natural gas

Fig 8: scenarios evaluated in the study.

Hot oil was assumed to be pumped downhole by a multistage centrifugal pump and a partition
system would be used to distribute it toward the 16 heating wells taken into account for the study.
Electricity to operate the equipments was supposed to be generated by a gas engine and, only for
electrical heating powered by the solar field, a ORC engine was envisaged. ORC engine is usually
preferred to traditional Rankine cycles for low power output (<5MWe) because its simpler start up
and maintenance procedures and since no operator attendance is required.
In the scenario with electrical heating powered by fossil fuels only a gas engine was considered
because the use of ORC would be more expensive.
ASSUMPTIONS & FACILITIES FOR SOLAR FIELD DESIGN AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Parabolic trough technology was chosen because it is the most established and applied worldwide,
consequently there are technical and economic data corroborated by many years of experience in
the field.
SAM 2010.11.9 (System Advisor Model), a software developed by NREL was used to design the
solar field and integrate the ORC power cycle. Irradiation and ambient temperature data were
collected by Meteonorm version 6.1 and EnergyPlus Energy Simulation Software databases.
Solar field CAPEX and OPEX were estimated by means of a spreadsheet elaborated by NREL and
properly modified for this study.
Aspen Capital Cost Estimator was used for other equipments CAPEX such as the furnace and
pumps with actualization made with Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Indexes (CEPCI).
7

Well drilling and completion costs were estimated on similar projects basis and suppliers
quotations. The same for electrical heating equipment.
Gas price was 2,1$/MMBTU and electricity cost, generated by gas engine, 20,5$/MWh.
The reduction of CO2 emissions were valued 6 /tonnCO2 based on EU Emission Allowances Primary Market Auction [8].
Depending on the scenario, solar field area ranges between 8000 and 27000 m2 for a 1383
kWh/m2/y DNI (Direct Normal Irradiation). This means that CSP application is not worth in offshore
installations where fossil fuel usage must be considered. In case of electrical heating application,
fossil sources might be associated to wind and tide energy exploitation and perhaps photovoltaic.
Those options with renewable energy sources are not investigated in the current study.
For the selected case-study we used a WACCadj (adjusted weighted average cost of capital) equal
to 11,5% and a Hurdle rate of 13,5%. IRR (Internal Rate of Return) and NPV (Net Present Value)
PRE-TAX are the parameters taken into account to measure the investment opportunity.

RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The main results of various scenarios are graphically compared and commented below.
100

IRR @WACCadj = 11.5%

90

Note: bubble diameter proportional to NPV[M]

80

70
60
50
40
30

20

10

0
15

20

25

30

35

40

CAPEX [M]
390C - Sun + Gas

390C - Sun

390C - Gas

Electrical heating by gas

Fig 9: main results for the selected case-study.

The results relative to hot oil circulation with maximum temperature 200C are not represented in
fig. 9 because NPV is negative since the additional oil production does not compensate the
increase of CAPEX (mainly due to heating wells costs because solar field investment is less than
30% of the total amount) and OPEX. At 390C higher oil productions are estimated and NPV turns
positive but IRR ranges between 14% and 22% because high capital costs affect the economic
result.
Even if electrical heating allows to obtain lower additional oil production than hot oil circulation (see
table 2), IRR is much higher because heating wells are not necessary. The best results are
obtained with continuous electrical heating while intermittent operation is not really effective (IRR <
15%).
The results disclosed above promote electrical heating by fossil source instead of hot oil circulation
coupled to the CSP technology. A gas price of 2,1 $/MMBTU is very low and makes the generation
of electricity by gas engine very convenient.
Hot oil circulation provides elevated additional oil production because higher operating
temperatures than electrical heating: its application with CSP becomes reliable when utilities costs
are high, DNI is good and obviously crude oil price is high. For this reason a sensitivity analysis
8

has been executed to acquire useful information to select real cases where this EOR method may
be convenient.
The parameters investigated are:
gas price;
WACC adj;
total CAPEX;
CAPEX relative to solar field only;
crude oil price;
DNI.
20

NPV [M] @WACCadj=11,5%

15
10
5
0
0

10

-5

-10

-15
-20

Gas price [$/MMBTU]

100% fossil @200C
100% fossil @390C

19% Sun @200C

19% Sun @390C

30% Sun @200C

30% Sun @390C

100% Sun @200C

100% Sun @390C

Fig 10: gas price sensitivity analysis.

NPV [M] @ gas price = 2,1$/MMBTU

20
15
10
5
0
-5

7,5

8,5

9,5

10

10,5

11

11,5

-10
-15
-20

WACC adj. [%]

100% f ossil @200C
100% f ossil @390C

19% Sun @200C

19% Sun @390C

30% Sun @200C

30% Sun @390C

Fig 11: WACCadj. sensitivity analysis.

9

100% Sun @200C

100% Sun @390C

12

25
20
15

NPV [M]

10
5
0
-5 -40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

-10
-15
-20
-25

CAPEX [%]
100% fossil @200C
100% fossil @390C

19% Sun @200C

19% Sun @390C

30% Sun @200C

30% Sun @390C

100% Sun @200C

100% Sun @390C

Fig 12: CAPEX sensitivity analysis.

25
20
15
10

NPV [M]

5
0
-5

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

-10
-15
-20
-25

CAPEX relative to solar field only [%]

100% fossil @200C
100% fossil @390C

19% Sun @200C

19%Sun @390C

30% Sun @200C

30% Sun @390C

Fig 13: solar field CAPEX sensitivity analysis.

10

100% Sun @200C

100% Sun @390C

35
25

NPV [M]

15
5
-5 40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

-15
-25

Crude oil price [$/bbl]

100% f ossil @200C
100% f ossil @390C

19% Sun @200C

19% Sun @390C

30% Sun @200C

30% Sun @390C

100% Sun @200C

100% Sun @390C

Fig 14: crude oil price sensitivity analysis.

20
15

NPV [M]

10
5
0
1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

-5
-10
-15

DNI [kWh/m2/y]
19% Sun @200C

30% Sun @200C

30% Sun @390C

100% Sun @390C

19% Sun @390C

Fig 15: direct normal irradiance sensitivity analysis.

11

3000

CONCLUSIONS
The fluid dynamics study of the heat exchange by means of hot oil circulation in a closed loop has
allowed to identify the optimal operating conditions (flowrates, inlet temperature, piping diameters,
etc). The L-shaped configuration of the heating wells, with insulation of both annulus and tubing
sides in the vertical section, is the most interesting for a possible technology deployment.
Calculated heat transfer rates have been accounted in reservoir simulations to evaluate the
additional oil production through an iterative process.
An increase in oil production of 2325% has been estimated with electrical heating method, 22%
up to 40% with heat transfer fluid circulation at respectively 200C and 390C. Those data confirm
that hot oil circulation method is very advantageous for EOR. It permits to obtain bigger heat
transfer rates because of higher operating temperatures while electrical heating is limited by the
insulation material of the resistive cables which cannot exceed 200C.
Moreover this EOR method might be used where steam drive is not economical or not applicable
(small fields, peripheral wells, high pressure reservoirs, etc) and it requests less energy
consumption. The closed loop configuration allows to operate with a hot oil stable at high
temperatures and no extra oil and water have to be treated on surface.
Hot oil circulation method allows also a more efficient solar energy exploitation than electrical
heating because the intermediate conversion step from thermal energy to electricity is avoided.
CSP application is feasible if coupled to a fossil back-up to heat the oil. Its use for electricity
production by an ORC cycle is less convenient.
For all the scenarios evaluated in this study, the investment on solar plant affects the total CAPEX
only for 1030%. The most relevant costs are those related to the heating wells drilling and
completion.
Reservoir depth, gas price and DNI are parameters to be carefully taken into account when
applying the hot oil circulation method coupled to a CSP plant.
In the next figure is reported the incidence of several parameters on NPV.

Scenario: hot oil circulation - 19%Sun + 81% fossil @390C

25

20

NPV [M]

15

10

0
-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Parameter deviation[%]
gas price

WACC adj.

CAPEX

Solar field CAPEX

Fig 16: parameters effect on NPV PRE-TAX.

12

crude oil price

DNI

Crude oil price and WACC adj. have a significant impact on NPV and consequently on the final
economic assessment. They depend on the site and can vary substantially along the plant life,
being affected by the local context but also by the evolution of global economic and geopolitical
scenarios. Capital costs related to drilling and completion operations have a significant impact.
Among the next steps, the team is working on new solutions to minimize the CAPEX. Further
analyses on materials resistance, flow assurance issues and thermal expansion compensation are
necessary.
CSP plant design needs accurate site data so previously a monitoring campaign would be
worthwhile.
Drilling and completion of one or more demonstrative heating wells would allow to validate the
technology, to verify the models, to find more appropriate technical solutions and to determine
more in detail costs and additional oil production.
In the end, the EOR method described in this paper might be applied at high temperatures (up to
550C by using molten salts as heat transfer fluid) for in-situ upgrading or kerogene maturation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to like to express appreciation to Maria Andrei, Del Bianco Alberto and
Mario Sobacchi for the information provided.

REFERENCES
[1] M. Absi Halabi, A. Al-Qattan, A. Al-Otaibi, Application of solar energy in the oil industry
Current status and future prospects, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, 43
(2015), pp. 296-314.
[2] H. Vinegar & al., patent WO 2008/131212, publication date: 30/10/2008.
[3] http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/coalinga#.VJf65sDA (as reported on December 2014).
[4] http://www.glasspoint.com/solar-eor-projects/berry-petroleum/ (as reported on December 2014).
[5] http://www.glasspoint.com/media/2013/05/GlassPoint-PDO-Fact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf (Dec. 2014).
[6]
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/GlassPoint-Wins-53M-From-Oman-Shell-VCsFor-Solar-Enhanced-Oil-Recovery (as reported on December 2014).
[7] http://www.majus.co.uk/ (as reported on December 2014).
[8]http://www.eex.com/en/Market%20Data/Trading%20Data/Emission%20Rights/EU%20Emission
%20Allowances%20%7C%20Spot (as reported on December 2012).

13