Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
It has been suggested in several studies that there may be a link
between the presence of high asphaltenes content and the foamability of oil. However, a systematic examination of the impact of
asphaltenes on the performance of solution gas drive, in connection with foamy oil flow, has not been reported. This paper presents an experimental study that addresses this issue.
The objective of this work was to examine whether or not
the presence of asphaltenes has a strong influence on the performance of foamy solution gas drive. To this end, parallel solution gas drive experiments were conducted using a heavy crude
oil from the Lloydminster area and a deasphalted version of the
same oil. To eliminate the influence of oil viscosity, the viscosity
of the crude oil was reduced to the same level as that of the deasphalted oil by diluting it with a 50-50 mixture of heptane and
toluene. The experiments were carried out in a visual sandpack
that permits observation of bubble formation in the sand. The
results show that the presence of asphaltenes significantly promotes foamy oil flow.
Introduction
Noticeable progress in understanding the high efficiency of solution gas drive in heavy oil reservoirs has been made in recent
years. However, basic mechanisms and reservoir engineering parameters are still being evaluated(1). Some authors attribute the high
efficiency of solution gas drive in heavy oil reservoirs to foam, and
the term foamy oil is used to describe the process. The question of
how the foam forms and how it helps in improving the production
performance remains to be fully answered.
In order to explain this high primary production, two main
mechanisms have been proposed(1, 2). The first is the increase of
the drainage radius of the well by the formation of high permeability channels, called wormholes(3). The second mechanism is the
low gas mobility in heavy oil leading to gas retention that helps in
maintaining high pressures in the reservoirs. Low gas mobility is
explained by the high oil viscosity and its foamy nature.
Smith(4) was the first to propose a model in which the gas flow
was in the form of micro bubbles dispersed in the oil phase. Subsequently, Maini et al.(5) experimentally observed this dispersed
gas phase and called it Foamy Oil. This leads to the discussion
of how the foam is formed and its nature, stability and movement
in the formation rock. Although the foamy oil flow occurs in all
viscous oil systems, irrespective of whether or not the oil contains asphaltenes, it has been suggested that asphaltenes enhance
foaminess.
PEER REVIEWED PAPER (REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
18
round grain sand of 140 200 mesh size that was washed to remove fines prior to packing in the sandpack holder. The model was
vibrated on a heavy duty vibration table during packing to obtain
a uniform packing density. The properties of the sandpack used in
primary depletion tests are listed in Table 1. The measured porosity
of 35.5% confirms that a relatively dense packing was obtained by
this method.
A back pressure regulator (BPR) was used to control the pressure at the production port of the sandpack. A mass flow controller
that discharged gas at constant mass rate from a nitrogen gas cylinder connected to the gas dome of the back pressure regulator was
used to reduce the pressure in the dome of the back pressure regulator. The constant rate of mass flow out of a pressurized gas tank
results in a nearly linear decline in the pressure in the tank. Since
the tank was connected to the dome of the BPR, we get a constant
decline rate of pressure at the production port of the sandpack.
Produced oil flowed into a 4 L transparent plexiglas vessel
placed on an electronic balance to monitor the oil production rate.
The produced gas was collected in a 9.6 L pressure vessel connected to the oil collection vessel. The gas production rate was
determined by the increase in the pressure of the gas collection
cylinder.
An automated data acquisition system was employed to record the oil production rate, gas production rate, core temperature
and values of gauge pressures at inlet and production ends of the
sandpack.
Oil Preparation
A heavy oil sample of 15.7API gravity was obtained from the
Golden Lake Field in Lloydminister, Canada. Viscosity of this oil
was measured with a rotational viscometer and was found to be
9,800 mPas at 20C. At a room temperature of 23C, the viscosity
was 5,500 mPas.
Asphaltenes were removed from about 3 L of the crude oil by
precipitating them with pentane using a volume ratio of crude to
pentane of 1:20. The precipitated asphaltenes were allowed to
Experimental Procedure
The sandpack in an upright position was evacuated for more
than three hours before it was saturated with water to measure the
pore volume. Its absolute permeability was measured by flowing
water through it and measuring the flow rate and the pressure gradient. Subsequently, dead oil (at least 1.5 PV) was injected to displace the water, pressure up the system to 2.76 MPa (400 psi) and
measure the effective oil permeability.
At a sandpack pressure of 2.76 MPa (400 psi), live oil was injected for over 1.5 PV or until the inlet and outlet pressures were
stable and the solution GOR in the produced oil was same as in the
injected oil. At the late stages of live oil injection, the produced solution GOR was measured regularly to ascertain the complete displacement of dead oil.
Once a uniform fluid was established in the sandpack, the live
oil injection was stopped and the system was allowed to equilibrate for at least six hours to allow the pressure and temperature
to become uniform. Thereafter, the outlet valve was opened and
the solution gas drive test started. The produced live oil volume
was determined from the weight of oil collected in the production vessel. The produced gas volume was determined from the recorded gas pressure and the volume of the gas. The pressure data
and balance readings were recorded every minute.
In this experimental work, we were primarily interested in the
recovery, rates and pressure response of the two oil samples at various depletion rates. For this, a total of six experiments that included three depletion tests at pressure decline rates of 980 kPa/hr
(142 psi/hr), 276 kPa/hr (40 psi/hr) and 115 kPa/hr (16.67 psi/hr)
were carried out with each of the diluted oil and the deasphalted oil.
The temperature for most of the experiments remained at 23C.
Deasphalted Oil
Diluted Oil
Original Oil
Permeability
Porosity
Pore-volume (PV)
Dead oil viscosity
API gravity
Specific gravity of oil
Solution gas oil ratio
Live oil viscosity
Oil formation volume factor
Swi
Length of core
Sand grain size
Displaceable PV
Asphaltenes concentration
6.4 Darcy
35.5%
574 ml
171 mPas
19.6
0.937
10.0 Std. m3/m3
70 mPas
1.03 res-m3/st-m3
4.4%
101 cm
140 200 mesh
548 ml
-
6.4 Darcy
35.5%
574 ml
188 mPas
17.9
0.948
9.4 Std. m3/m3
84 mPas
1.023 res-m3/st-m3
4.4%
101 cm
140 200 mesh
548 ml
22.3% by weight
5,500 mPas
15.7
0.961
28% by weight
19
Results
When the depletions start with the system being fully liquid saturated, fluid withdrawal initially causes the pressure to go down
almost uniformly everywhere in the system. This is because, at
this stage, only low compressibility liquid is present in the system
Cumulative oildeasphalted
Upstream pressurediluted
Cumulative oildiluted
500
100.00
450
90.00
400
350
80.00
70.00
300
250
60.00
50.00
200
40.00
150
100
30.00
20.00
50
0
10.00
0.00
0
10
15
20
Pressure (psig)
Upstream pressuredeasphalted
Downstream pressurediluted
Downstream pressuredeasphalted
and the small amount of liquid that flows out requires only a small
pressure gradient for the flow. For gas nucleation and its expansion
to start, it requires a certain level of supersaturation that will come
with the pressure depletion.
Figures 2 to 4 show the upstream and downstream pressure
profiles and cumulative oil volumes for the deasphalted and the
diluted oils for the three depletion rates mentioned above. It is observed that the pressure recovery, resulting from gas release, occurs at a value much lower than the oil saturation pressure of 2.76
MPa. This pressure can be called apparent bubble point pressure
and is dependent on rate of pressure depletion. The size of pressure
recovery depends on the degree of supersaturation of the oil and
the mobility of the system. A larger pressure recovery shows that
the gas released from the solution was not able to move out of the
500
450
400
350
Diluted
300
250
200
150
Deasphalted
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
25
Time (hours)
Cumulative oildeasphalted
Upstream pressurediluted
Cumulative oildiluted
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pressure (psig)
Upstream pressuredeasphalted
Downstream pressurediluted
Downstream pressuredeasphalted
500
FIGURE 2: Oil production and pressure profiles of diluted and deasphalted oils at depletion rate of 16.67 psi/hr (31.9 Pa/s).
450
400
350
Diluted
300
250
Deasphalted
200
150
100
50
0
0
Time (hours)
Cumulative oildeasphalted
Upstream pressurediluted
Cumulative oildiluted
Pressure (psig)
200
450
180
400
350
160
140
300
250
120
100
200
80
150
100
60
40
50
0
500
0
0
40
60
80
100
120
FIGURE 3: Oil production and pressure profiles of diluted and deasphalted oils at depletion rate of 40 psi/hr (76.6 Pa/s).
Upstream pressuredeasphalted
Downstream pressurediluted
Downstream pressuredeasphalted
20
500
450
400
Diluted
350
300
250
200
150
100
Deasphalted
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Time (hours)
FIGURE 4: Oil production and pressure profiles of diluted and deasphalted oils in full drawdown depletions.
20
region at fast enough rates and indicates fast release of gas and/or
low gas mobility. This pressure recovery phenomenon is not very
conspicuous in slow depletion rates, mainly due to a balance between the gas production and fluid movement in the sandpack. A
larger recovery and larger volume of oil production was noticed in
the slow depletion test with the diluted oil.
The pressure profiles of the three cases as a function of cumulative oil produced are shown in Figures 5 to 7. The final oil recovery in tests with the diluted oil (oil in this case includes the
liquid diluent) is higher. It is interesting to note that in runs with
the diluted oil, the recovery in earlier stages of depletion is significantly higher as compared to the corresponding deasphalted oil
runs. At the later stages of depletion, the deasphalted oil appears to
be catching up, but still falls a little short.
Oil ratediluted
GORdiluted
45
225
40
200
35
175
30
150
25
125
20
100
15
75
10
50
25
0
0
10
15
20
0
25
Deasphalted oil
Oil ratedeasphalted
GOR deasphalted
The oil flow rates and GOR profiles for the two systems, as
shown in Figures 8-10, demonstrate similar behaviour. The GOR
is comparable in both systems, whereas the diluted oil shows a
higher production rate at the start of gas release in the core. The
GOR in the full drawdown test remains low throughout, whereas in
the slowest test, it shows a gradually increasing trend. Somewhat
lower initial GOR in tests with the diluted oil, at all depletion rates,
indicates its higher propensity to retain gas and it may be an indication of the effect of asphaltenes in reducing gas mobility.
Plots showing pressure drawdown (pressure difference between
the shut-in end and the production end of the sandpack) as a function of time are shown in Figures 11 to 13. Other than at the time
of initial gas nucleation and expansion, the two oil systems show
only minor differences. The higher pressure drawdown at the time
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
Time (hours)
180
160
70
140
60
120
50
40
100
80
30
60
20
10
40
20
0
6
200
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
25
0
4
Time (hours)
FIGURE 10: Oil rate and GOR in full drawdown depletions.
50
Deasphalted oil
75
10
Diluted oil
200
100
Oil ratediluted
GORdiluted
100
Time (hours)
1,000
Diluted oil
16
10
25
18
Time (hours)
Oil ratedeasphalted
GOR deasphalted
20
20
Deasphalted oil
Oil ratediluted
GORdiluted
90
80
15
100
10
Time (hours)
Oil ratedeasphalted
GOR deasphalted
Diluted oil
10
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
Time (hours)
FIGURE 13: Pressure drawdown profile in full drawdown
depletions.
21
Diluted oil
Deasphalted oil
50%
Recovery Factor
(% of oil in-place)
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
of initial gas release appears to show the more foamy nature of the
diluted oil.
Earlier release of gas from solution in both slow depletion tests
indicates gas nucleation at lower supersaturation in the case of oil
with asphaltenes.
The pressure recovery that occurs after the start of gas evolution
is a reflection of the speed of gas release and the inability of the released gas to flow out of the system at high enough rates. The rate
of gas release depends on the level of supersaturation present, the
gas diffusivity in oil and the number of bubble nuclei formed. The
rate at which the gas can flow depends on the gas mobility in the
system. It is apparent that this balance between the release of gas
and its migration out of the system varied significantly between the
two systems investigated. The pressure recovery was more prominent in the case of the diluted oil.
The relationship between the final recovery factor and the depletion rate is shown in Figure 14. Though there is not much difference between the deasphalted and the diluted oil in the full
drawdown test, a small shift of about 2% recovery can be seen in
the longer tests. This, however, may or may not be significant in
view of the experimental errors.
The visual observations of the model provided additional insight
into the gas release process. The full drawdown tests showed uniform dispersion of small (1 to 2 mm) gas bubbles in both the systems and these were observed to flow with the oil throughout the
sand face. This is an indication of the foamy oil flow. In the slow
depletion tests, this phenomenon was more prominent in the diluted oil. Relatively larger bodies of coalesced gas were observed
in slower tests with the deasphalted oil.
Discussion
In this work, we have examined the effect of asphaltenes on
the recovery factors and production rates in the solution gas drive
process. The performance of deasphalted oil was compared with
that of the diluted version of the same crude oil. The presence of
asphaltenes was found to facilitate the bubble nucleation and reduce the critical supersaturation compared to the deasphalted case.
However, the presence of asphaltenes did not dramatically alter the
final recovery factor. The most significant difference comes near
the time of gas release/expansion and most of the incremental oil is
produced at this point. The results suggest that the concentration of
asphaltenes is a significant factor in foamy oil flow.
It should be mentioned that there was a small difference in the
solution gas-oil ratio of the two oils, as shown in Table 1. This
could have some effect on the depletion performance and the
higher GOR system would be expected to give better performance. However, in these tests, the diluted oil, which had lower
GOR, showed better performance. Therefore, the difference in
solution GOR cannot account for the observed differences in the
performance.
22
Conclusions
1. Asphaltenes appear to contribute to a small amount of additional oil recovery (about 2% of original oil in place).
The recovery contrast is more significant near the start of
depletion.
2. Crude oil with asphaltenes shows superior gas retention as
the pressure recovery was higher with the asphaltenes containing oil.
3. The presence of asphaltenes appears to facilitate bubble nucleation and decreases the critical supersaturation.
4. Asphaltenes appear to help in maintaining the dispersed gas
flow by suppressing bubble coalescence.
REFERENCES
1. MAINI, B.B., Foamy-Oil Flow; Journal of Petroleum Technology,
Vol. 53, No. 10, pp. 54-64, October 2001.
2. HUERTA, M., OTERO, C., RICO, A., JIMENEZ, I., DE MIRABAL,
M. and ROJAS, G., Understanding Foamy Oil Mechanisms for
Heavy Oil Reservoirs During Primary Production; paper SPE 36749
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, CO, 6-9 October 1996.
3. DUSSEAULT, M.B. and EL-SAYED, S., Heavy-Oil Production
Enhancement by Encouraging Sand Production; paper SPE 59276
presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
OK, 3-5 April 2000.
4. SMITH, G.E., Fluid Flow and Sand Production in Heavy-Oil Reservoirs under Solution-Gas Drive; SPE Production Engineering, Vol. 3,
No 2, pp. 169-180, May 1988.
5. MAINI, B.B., SARMA, H.K. and GEORGE, A.E., Significance of
Foamy-Oil Behaviour in Primary Production of Heavy Oils; Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 50-54, November 1993.
6. CLARIDGE, E.L. and PRATS, M., A Proposed Model and Mechanism for Anomalous Foamy Heavy Oil Behaviour; paper SPE 29243
presented at the International Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, AB,
19-21 June 1995.
7. BORA, R., MAINI, B.B. and CHAKMA, A., Flow Visualization
Studies of Solution Gas Drive Process in Heavy Oil Reservoirs Using
a Glass Micromodel; paper SPE 37519 presented at the International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield, CA, 1012 February 1997.
8. TANG, G-Q. and FIROOZABADI, A., Gas and Liquid-Phase Relative Permeabilities for Cold Production From Heavy Oil Reservoirs;
paper SPE 56540 presented at the SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, 3-6 October 1999.
9. ANDARCIA, L., HENY, C. and RICO, A., Experimental Study on
Production Performance of Two Different Heavy Oils in Venezuela;
paper presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, 4-8 June 2000.
10. ROGEL, E., LEN, O., TORRES, G. and ESPIDEL, J., Aggregation
of Asphaltenes in Organic Solvents Using Surface Tension Measurements; Fuel, Vol. 79, No. 11, pp. 1389-1394, September 2000.
11. TURTA, A.T., MAINI, B.B. and JACKSON, C., Mobility of GasIn-Oil Dispersions in Enhanced Solution Gas Drive (Foamy Oil)
Exploitation of Heavy Oil Reservoirs; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 48-55, March 2003.
12. BAUGET F., LANGEVIN, D. and LENORMAND, R., Effects of Asphaltenes and Resins on Foamability of Heavy Oil; paper SPE 71504
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, LA, 30 September-3 October 2001.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, Role of Asphaltenes in Foamy Oil Flow (2003-118), first presented at the 4th
Canadian International Petroleum Conference (the 54th Annual Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society), June 10-12, 2003, in Calgary, Alberta.
Abstract submitted for review December 2, 2002; editorial comments sent
to the author(s) November 17, 2004; revised manuscript received November 17, 2006; paper approved for pre-press November 17, 2006; final
approval March 1, 2007.
Authors Biographies
Imtiaz Adil is a senior reservoir engineer
with British Petroleum (BP) Canada. He
joined this organization in 1991, and has
enjoyed various upstream engineering positions in Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the
United States and Canada. Currently, Mr.
Adil has been providing subsurface expertise in tight gas and coalbed methane for
BPs Canadian Business Unit. In 2001, he
took educational leave and joined the University of Calgary to pursue an M.Sc. in
chemical engineering. His thesis work, and various other efforts,
became the basis for this technical paper.
Brij Maini is a professor of chemical and
petroleum engineering at the University of
Calgary. He holds a B.Tech. from the Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur and a Ph.D.
from the University of Washington, both in
chemical engineering. He served as a senior
staff research engineer and group leader
for heavy oil research at the Petroleum Recovery Institute for over 20 years before
taking up his current academic position in
1999. He has been studying the unusual behaviour of primary production in several Canadian heavy oil reservoirs for nearly 20 years and has authored several papers on this
topic. His other research interests include bitumen recovery with
Vapex and steam assisted gravity drainage processes and multiphase flow through porous media.
23