EVALUATION OF THERMAL RECOVERY PROCESSES FOR

DEVELOPMENT OF HEAVY OIL FIELDS

Dr. Ali Suat Bagci

Institute of Petroleum Engineering
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh EH14 4AS
United Kingdom
 OUTLINE

• Introduction
• Previous Studies on Heavy Oil Recovery Research
• Heavy Oil Fields in UKCS
• Research Topics in HWU
• Future Research Topics
Introduction
 The Coming Revolution Will:

• Allow much higher oil recovery from all types of oil

reservoirs
• Allow us to re-enter old fields and recover much of the
oil left behind
• Permit economic recovery of more viscous oils (µ > 100
cp in situ)
• Extend recoverable reserves of world oil dramatically
 World Reserves

• Currently, 90% of Conventional Heavy Oil

production is from Oil - 30% 15%
conventional oil

• Heavy oil and bitumen Extra Heavy

are growing rapidly and Bitumen
55%
• Canada and Venezuela
together have >35% of
the non-conventional oil
reserves in sands
World Oil in Place
Conventional <100 cp
Heavy Oil 100 – 10000 cp
Bitumen >10,000 cp
 Future of Conventional Oil

• 2001 predictions: Conventional Oil Prediction in Red

– Demand +1.5%/yr Total Need Prediction in Blue Dots

Q- BB/yr
– Less replacement
~29-31 Heavy oil, bitumen, &
other sources

– World production
peaks in ~2006- 20
2008

2006-2008
– Middle East now at
30%, 50% by 2011 1978
Campbell and Laherrère
March 1998 Scientific
American, p. 78 ff
Previous Studies on Heavy Oil Recovery
Research
 Heavy Oil Reservoirs in TURKEY
Field API Oil in Recovery Proven OOIP 6,650 MMstb
Gravity Place Factor
(MMstb) (%)
Recoverable oil 1,100 MMstb
B. Raman 12 1,850 12.0

Raman 18 400 1.5

Cumulative 815 MMstb
production (since
Çamurlu 12 377 1.0
1950)
Garzan 26 163 25.0
Remaining 285 MMstb
recoverable oil
B. Kozluca 12 138 1.5

Adıyaman 26 72 10.1 Remaining proven 5,550 MMstb

oil
G. Dinçer 17 55 1.0
Proven heavy oil 3,310 MMstb
Đkiztepe 11 53 1.0

Solution to increase oil recovery ?

Thermal Recovery Methods
In-Situ Combustion-Reaction Kinetics Studies
14 1200
CO
CO2

12 O2 CONSUMED
TEMPERATURE 1000
Thermocouple
RUN = CAM01
10 CRUDE OIL = CAMURLU
This study has been conducted to

GAS COMPOSITIONS (Vol %)

API GRAVITY = 12 ° 800
PRESSURE = 172 kPa

TEMPERATURE ( K)
8
study the reaction kinetics
Thermocouple
600 parameters of different °API
6
gravity crude oils produced in
4
400
Turkey in a limestone medium.
200
2
Insulation
jacket

0 0
0 50 100 TIME (min) 150 200 250 CRUDE OIL API VISCOSITY
Reaction
cell GRAVITY @ 20 °C (cp)
3 800

Heater
CO
CO2 Batı Raman 12 52,000
O2 CONSUMED 700
2,5 TEMPERATURE
Çamurlu 12 64,000
600

Raman 18 2,260
GAS COMPOSITIONS (Vol %)

TEMPERATURE ( K)
500

Adıyaman 26 64
1,5 400
RUN = BEY01
CRUDE OIL = BEYKAN
Garzan 28 37
API GRAVITY = 32 °
PRESSURE = 172 kPa 300
1 Karakuş 29 87
200
Beykan 32 12
0,5
100

0 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
TIME (min)
 1-D Combustion Tube Experiments
700

t = 40 min.
STABILIZED PERIOD
600 t = 110 min.

t = 140 min.

500 t = 247 min.

t = 310 min.

TEMPERATURE ( C)
400 t = 340 min.

t = 394 min.

300
Igniter

External
Perform dry and wet combustion band heater
200
experiments for Turkish heavy oil Thermo well

reservoirs under various experimental Thermocouple

location
100
conditions. CRUDE OIL : BATI KOZLUCA
DRY COMBUSTION TEST Combustion tube
RUN : BKDC2
Insulation
0
jacket
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
• Crushed limestone
DISTANCE FROM INLET (cm)
• Combustion peak temperature
• Fuel consumption rate 100

• Air requirement 90
WET COMBUSTION
CRUDE OIL : BATI KOZLUCA
API GRAVITY : 12 °API
80

70
OIL RECOVERY (% OOIP)

60

50

40

30
BKWC1
BKWC2
20
BKWC3
BKWC4
10
BKWC5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
TIME (min)
 3-D Physical Model Combustion Experiments

• Use of horizontal wells

• Areal and vertical sweep efficiencies
VERTICAL INJECTOR- VERTICAL INJECTOR- VERTICAL INJECTOR-
• Combustion front stability
VERTICAL PRODUCER HORIZONTAL PRODUCER (DIAGONAL) HORĐZONTAL PRODUCER (RIHGT SIDE)
• Optimum well configurations

VERTICAL INJECTOR- VERTICAL INJECTOR –

HORIZONTAL PRODUCER (LEFT SIDE) 2 HORIZONTAL PRODUCER

30.00 30.00 80

3-D COMBUSTION
25.00 25.00
70 CRUDE OIL = RAMAN (18 ° API)

20.00 20.00
DISTANCE, cm
DISTANCE, cm

60

15.00 15.00
OIL RECOVERY (% OOIP)
50

10.00 10.00

40
RM-1(VI-VP)
5.00 5.00
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
DISTANCE, cm
DISTANCE, cm
RM-2 (VI-HP(D))
30
30.00 30.00 RM-3 (VI-HP(R))

RM-4 (VI-HP(L))
20
25.00 25.00
RM-5 (VI-2HP)

RM-6 (VI-VP)
20.00 20.00 10
DISTANCE, cm

DISTANCE, cm

RM-7 (VI-HP(D))

15.00 15.00
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

10.00 10.00 TIME (min)

5.00 5.00
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
DISTANCE, cm DISTANCE, cm
 Steam/Gas Injection Experiments
160
STEAM ONLY STEAM-CH4 STEAM-CO2
140
24.00 24.00 24.00
0.72 PV
22.00 22.00 22.00
120

20.00 20.00 20.00

TEMPERATURE ( C)

100 0.29 PV
0.11 PV 18.00 18.00 18.00
0.61 PV 0.65 PV
0.04 PV

DISTANCE, cm

DISTANCE, cm
DISTANCE,cm
0.47 PV 16.00 16.00 16.00
80
0.58 PV
14.00 14.00 14.00

60
12.00 12.00 12.00

INITIAL
10.00 10.00 10.00
40
8.00 8.00 8.00

20 6.00 6.00 6.00

RUN TYPE = STEAM ONLY
6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00
RUN = 1S2 (1-D MODEL) DISTANCE, cm DISTANCE, cm DISTANCE, cm
0
0 20 40 60

DISTANCE FROM INLET (cm)

80 100 120
Injected Steam = 0.51 PV Injected Steam = 0.58 PV Injected Steam = 0.55 PV

90 3,5
70 16
1-MODEL 3-MODEL
85
3 14
60
ULTIMATE OIL RECOVERY (% OOIP)

ULTIMATE OIL RECOVERY (% OOIP)

80
12
2,5
STEAM/OIL RATIO (cc/cc)

50

STEAM/OIL RATIO (cc/cc)

75
10
2
40
70
8
1,5
30
65
6

1
60 20
STEAM-CO2 4

STEAM-CH4 STEAM-CO2
0,5
55 STEAM-CO2 10 STEAM-CH4
2
STEAM-CH4 STEAM-CO2
STEAM-CH4
50 0
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
GAS/STEAM RATIO (cc/cc) GAS/STEAM RATIO (cc/cc)
 Steam Injection Experiments
60 45

STBW-4 (BWZT = 0.0 cm)

STBW-1 (BWZT = 0.0 cm)
STBW-5 (BWZT = 1.0 cm) 40 STBW-2 (BWZT = 1.0 cm)
STBW-6 (BWZT = 2.5 cm)
50 STBW-3 (BWZT = 2.5 cm)
WELL CONFIGURATION = VI - HP 35
(SHORT PERPENDICULAR ARM OF THE MODEL)

OIL RECOVERY (% OOIP)

OIL RECOVERY (% OOIP)

40 30

WELL CONFIGURATION = VI - VP
VERTICAL INJECTION-VERTICAL PRODUCTION 25
30

20

20
15

10
10

0
0
VERTICAL INJECTION-HORIZONTAL PRODUCTION 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00
0,000 0,500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
(SHORT PERPENDICULAR ARM) INJECTED STEAM (P.V., cwe)
INJECTED STEAM (PORE VOLUME, cwe)

80,0

STBW-7 (BWZT = 0.0 cm)

STBW-8 (BWZT = 1.0 cm)
70,0
STBW-9 (BWZT = 2.5 cm)

60,0 WELL CONFIGURATION = VI - HP

(HYPOTENUSE OF MODEL)

OIL RECOVERY (% OOIP)

50,0
VERTICAL INJECTION-HORIZONTAL PRODUCTION
(HYPOTENUSE)
40,0

30,0

20,0

10,0

0,0
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00

INJECTED STEAM (P.V., cwe)

• The maximum oil recoveries were obtained by placing the horizontal producers along the
hypotenuse of the triangular model.
• Oil recoveries decreased with an increase in the thickness of the bottom water zone.
• The steam-oil ratio increased in the presence of bottom water.
 SAGD in Fractured Reservoirs
FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW 6.00

8.00

125.00
10.00
120.00

12.00 115.00

110.00

DSTANCE, cm
14.00
105.00
HI
16.00 100.00

HP 95.00
18.00
90.00

(A) (B) (C) 20.00 85.00

80.00
22.00

FRACTURE SCHEME - 1
24.00

24.00 22.00 20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00
DISTANCE, cm

Injected Steam = 0.11 P.V.

6.00

8.00 147.00
146.00

Vertical fractures
145.00
144.00
10.00
143.00
142.00
141.00
12.00 140.00
139.00
138.00

DISTANCE, cm
137.00
FRACTURE SCHEME - 2 FRACTURE SCHEME - 3 14.00 136.00
135.00
134.00
16.00 133.00
132.00
131.00
130.00
18.00 129.00
120 128.00
127.00
20.00 126.00
SAGD-1(CONVENTIONAL)
22.00
SAGD-3(CONVENTIONAL+VERTICAL FRACTURE)
100 24.00
SAGD-5(CONVENTIONAL+HORIZONTAL FRACTURE)
24.00 22.00 20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00
DISTANCE, cm

Injected Steam = 0.57 P.V.

OIL RECOVERY (% OOIP)

80

6.00

60 8.00
120.00
119.80
10.00
119.60
119.40
12.00 119.20
119.00
Horizontal fractures 40
118.80

Distance, cm
14.00
118.60
118.40
16.00 118.20
118.00

18.00 117.80
20 117.60
117.40
20.00
117.20
117.00
22.00

0
24.00
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4
24.00 22.00 20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00
INJECTED STEAM (PV) Distance, cm

Injected Steam = 0.72 P.V.

Heavy Oil Fields in UKCS
 Development of UKCS Heavy Oil

• Heavy oils represent a significant potential resource base on

the UKCS, with around 10 billion STB in place.

• Assuming an average recovery factor in the range 20 – 40 %

shows that there are approximately 1.5 to 3 billion STB to be
produced over and above that from existing UKCS heavy oil
developments.

• Potential applications of Thermal Oil Recovery methods in

UKCS.

• Development of heavy-oil related research.

 UKCS Heavy Oil Accumulations
Fields in production

Field ° API Depth Permeability Reservoir Viscosity STOIIP

(ft) (md) Temp (°F) (cp) (MMSTB)

Alba 20 6,500 3000 165 7 >500

Captain 19 2,900 7000 87 88 956

Gryphon 21 5,700 10 000 140 6 207

Harding 19 to 21 5,700 10 000 140 5 to 10 >322

Gannet E 20 5,700 870 175 20 132

Fields under appraisal Total > 2,100

Field ° API Depth Permeability Reservoir Viscosity STOIIP

(ft) (md) Temp (°F) (cp) (MMSTB)

Mariner (M) 14 4,800 5000 116 65 ?

Mariner (H) 12 4,200 3000 100 540 ?

Bressay 11 to 12 3,500 10 000 93 1000 ?

Total > 2,700

Total of other discoveries 2,400
Total of prospects 2,000
Total Developed + Discoveries + Prospects > 9,200
 UK production forecast (mmboe/d)

Actual production Forecast UKCS oil and gas production 2003 - 2010
4.5 4.5
PILOT targets 2005 & 2010
4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5
Possible new developments
2.0 2.0
Probable new developments upside
1.5 1.5
Brown field growth
1.0 1.0
Probable new developments
0.5 Approved fields Proven + Probable 0.5

0.0 0.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source DTI 2003 annual reserves review

 Energy Strategy in UK
• Extend life of conventional oil
and gas fields
• Heavy oil fields
• Oil shales
• Underground coal gasification
• Coal bed methane production

Innovation programs
• Heavy oil upgrading
• Improved heavy oil
recovery
• Clean carbon
• Alternative and renewable
energy
• Water management
• CO2 Management
 Characteristics of UKCS heavy oil fields

• Relatively shallow reservoirs

• Comprising high porosity unconsolidated sands
• Excellent horizontal permeability (3 000 – 10 000 md)
• Very high vertical permeability (kv/kh = 0.2 – 1.0)
• Underlain by water zone
• Have primary gas cap

GOOD CANDITATES FOR THERMAL HEAVY

OIL RECOVERY APPLICATIONS
 Challenges in producing heavy oils

Conventional heavy oil recovery methods have showed to provide limited

oil displacement efficiencies in heavy and extra-heavy oil reservoirs.

Proposed methods:
* Steam injection processes (Cyclic steam stimulation/ Steam
flooding)
* In-situ combustion processes (Dry/wet, COFCAW)
* Solvent injection

These methods combine the concept of oil gravity drainage with the
conventional steam injection, in-situ combustion and solvent-based
heavy oil recovery processes and the horizontal well technology.
 New in-situ thermal heavy oil recovery methods

• Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)

* SAGD Wind Down
* HASD (Horizontal Alternate Steam Drive)
* SAGP (Steam and Gas Push)
* SA-GOGD (Steam Assisted-Gas-Oil-Gravity Drainage)
• In-Situ Combustion
* THAI (Toe-to-Heel Air Injection)
* Basal Combustion
* Top-Down Combustion
• Solvent-Based Injection
* VAPEX (Vapour Extraction)
* ES-SAGD (Expanding Solvent-SAGD)
* LASER (Liquid Addition to Steam for Enhancing Recovery)
* SAS (Steam-Alternating Solvent Process)
* CO2-Based VAPEX Process
Research Topics in HWU
 Steam-Assisted-Gas-Oil-Gravity Drainage (SAGOGD)
Process in Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs
HOT GAS MATRIX
(STEAM)

GOC
FGOC FRACTURES

FOWC

OWC OIL FILM

AQUIFER The SA-GOGD process relies heavily on fractures to provide a

OIL+WATER+GAS
conduit for steam and hence heating of the matrix blocks by
STEAM conduction, as well as providing the means for gravity
differences and drainage of oil via the fracture oil rim.

The major recovery uncertainties for the SA-GOGD recovery

GOC
mechanism are therefore expected to be:
FGOC
* Fracture spacing throughout the matrix oil column,
FOWC
* Heat transfer from fractures to the matrix,
* Oil viscosity and compositional variation with temperature,
OWC * Matrix vertical permeability and Kv/Kh’
* Matrix relative permeability and remaining oil after steam
injection,
* Thermal induced wettability alteration and capillary pressure
AQUIFER
effects.
 Top-Down Combustion in Fractured Heavy Oil Reservoirs
Having Strong Bottom Water Aquifer
AIR INJECTION
WELLS

HORIZONTAL PRODUCERS
BOTTOM WATER

• Injection of air or enriched air at the top of the reservoir.

• Drainage of the mobilized oil by gravity to a bottom horizontal well.
• Possible application in reservoirs having bottom water.
• Use a continuous injection/production strategy.
• Use high capacity horizontal production wells or multilateral production wells
for efficient gas and liquid removal from the reservoir.
• Co-inject water with air to maintain a flow of water underneath the gas flow.
 Numerical Simulation Studies of SAGD Process in Fractured
Reservoirs
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE = 30 cm
FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW

HI
HP

(B) (C) VERTICAL

(A)
DISTANCE = 30 cm
FRACTURE SCHEME - 1 INJECTOR

∆Y = 2 cm

PRODUCER
∆X = 2 cm

FRACTURE SCHEME - 2 FRACTURE SCHEME - 3

File: SAG DBASE(HI-HP).irf F ile: SAGDBASE(HI-HP)RAMAN.irf F ile: SAGDBASE(HI-HP)RAMAN.irf

File: SAG DBASE(HI-HP).irf User: ali suat User: ali suat User: ali suat
User: ali suat 0 10 20 30 Date: 2006-02-16 0 10 20 30 Date: 2006-02-16 0 10 20 30 Date: 2006-02-16
ST EAM INJT
PRODUCER PRO
ST EAM
DUCER
INJT PRO
ST EAM
DUCER
INJT
0 10 20 30 Date: 2006-02-16
ST EAM INJT
PRODUCER Scale: 1:2.370907 Scale: 1:2.370907 Scale: 1:2.370907

40

40
40

40
40

40

Scale: 1:2.370907 Z/X: 1.00:1 Z /X: 1.00:1 Z /X: 1.00:1

40

40

Z/X: 1.00:1 Axis Units: cm Axis Units: cm Axis Units: cm

Axis Units: cm

133 111 111

133 130
130 105
126 105
126
122

50

50
50

50
122
50

50

119 99
50

50

119 99
115
115
111 93
111 93
107
107
104
104 87 87
100
100
96
96 81 81
93
93
89
89 75

60

60
75
60

60
85
60

60

85
60

60

81
81
78 69 69
78
74
74
70 63 63
70
67
67
63 58
63 58
59 0.00 1.50 3.00 inches 0.00 1.50 3.00 inches
59 0.00 1.50 3. 00 inches
0.00 1.50 3. 00 inches 55 52 0.00 4.50 9.00 cm
52
55 0.00 4.50 9.00 cm
52 0.00 4.50 9.00 cm
52

70

70
70

0.00 4.50 9.00 cm

70
70

70
70

70

0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30

INJECTED STEAM = 0.08 PV INJECTED STEAM = 1.00 PV INJECTED STEAM = 0.04 PV INJECTED STEAM = 0.14 PV

WITHOUT FRACTURE WITH FRACTURE

 In-Situ Upgrading of Heavy Oils During Thermal Recovery
Processes (ISUHO)
Main difficulties:
* recovery of heavy oil
* transportation of heavy oil
* refining of heavy oil

can be removed by the upgrading process of heavy oil into the reservoir
or well head.

Requirements for in situ upgrading include:

* provision for a downhole bed catalyst in the reservoir.
* achieving appropriate reaction conditions in the reservoir to realise a
reasonable degree of catalytic upgrading.
* mobilisation of reactants, mainly oil and hydrogen, over the catalyst.
* production of the upgraded oil.
Future Research Topics
 Future Research Topics

• Use and Storage of CO2 with steam-based thermal

processes for heavy oil recovery.
• Microwave heating and downhole steam generation
particularly for use in deep reservoirs.
• Application of upgrading technologies at the wellhead or
in reservoir.
• Multilateral wells ( play an important role in the future
of heavy oil development)
* Steam injection in multilateral wells.
* Solvent-steam stimulation in multilateral wells.
* Multilateral well applications in in-situ combustion
process.
If you have questions – join the debate at
www.heavyoilinfo.com/forums