0
Research Papers: Petroleum Engineering

Semi-Analytical Proxy for Vapex Process Modeling in Heterogeneous Reservoirs

[+] Author and Article Information
Jindong Shi

School of Mining and Petroleum Engineering,
Markin/CNRL Natural Resources
Engineering Facility,
University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB T6G 2W2, Canada

Juliana Y. Leung

School of Mining and Petroleum Engineering,
Markin/CNRL Natural Resources
Engineering Facility,
University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB T6G 2W2, Canada
e-mail: juliana2@ualberta.ca

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 10, 2013; final manuscript received April 9, 2014; published online May 15, 2014. Assoc. Editor: W. David Constant.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 136(3), 032904 (May 15, 2014) (13 pages) Paper No: JERT-13-1317; doi: 10.1115/1.4027571 History: Received November 10, 2013; Revised April 09, 2014

Vapex (vapor extraction) is a nonthermal process that has significant potential in providing a more environmentally friendly and energy-efficient alternative to steam injection. Vaporized solvent injected in-situ dissolves into the oil and reduces oil viscosity, allowing the oil to flow to a horizontal production well via gravitational forces. While compositional simulators are available for assessing the Vapex performance, the simulation process may become difficult when taking into account the uncertainty due to reservoir heterogeneity. A semi-analytical proxy is proposed to model the process, in a way analogous to the steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) model described by Butler, who demonstrated the similarity between two processes with a series of Hele-Shaw experiments and derived an analytical steady-state flow rate relationship that is comparable with the SAGD case. Solvent concentration and intrinsic diffusivity are introduced in this model instead of temperature and thermal diffusivity in SAGD. In this paper, analytical solutions and implementation details for the Vapex proxy are presented. The proposed approach is then applied to various reservoirs discretized with spatially varying rock porosity and permeability values; bitumen drainage rate and solvent penetration are calculated sequentially at grid blocks along the solvent–bitumen interface over incremental time steps. Results from this model are compared against experimental data available in the literature as well as detailed compositional simulation studies. Computational requirement of the proxy in comparison with numerical simulations is also emphasized. An important contribution from this work is that process physics are built directly into this proxy, giving it an advantage over other data-driven modeling approaches (e.g., regression). It can be used as an efficient alternative to expensive detailed flow simulations. It presents an important potential for assessing the uncertainty due to multiscale heterogeneity on effective mass transfer and the resulting recovery performance, as well as assisting decisions-making for future pilot and field development.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Karim, G. A., Hanafi, A., and Mehta, S. A., 1989, “Volatilization and Ignition of Oil Sand Samples During Intermittent Exposure to Hot Low-Velocity Air Streams,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 111(2), pp. 104–109. [CrossRef]
Hubbard, M., Krehbiel, D. K., and Gollahalli, S. R., 1994, “A Laboratory-Scale Experimental Study of In-Situ Combustion Processes,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 116(3), pp. 169–174. [CrossRef]
Das, S. K., and Butler, R. M., 1994, “Investigation of ‘VAPEX’ Process in a Packed Cell Using Butane as a Solvent,” Canadian SPE/CIM/CANMET International Conference on Recent Advances in Horizontal Well Applications, Calgary, March 20–24.
Forster, L. J., 2008, “Numerical Modeling of the VAPEX Process in Heterogeneous Media,” M.Sc. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Das, S. K., and Butler, R. M., 1998, “Mechanism of the Vapor Extraction Process for Heavy Oil and Bitumen,” J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 21(1–2), pp. 43–59. [CrossRef]
Butler, R. M., and Mokrys, I. J., 1989, “Solvent Analog Model of Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage,” AOSTRA J. Res., 5(1), pp. 17–32.
Yazdani, A., and Maini, B. B., 2008, “Modeling of the VAPEX Process in a Very Large Physical Model,” Energy Fuels, 22(1), pp. 535–544. [CrossRef]
Yazdani, A., and Maini, B. B., 2005, “Effect of Drainage Height and Grain Size on Production Rates in the Vapex Process: Experimental Study,” SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng., 8(3), pp. 205–213. [CrossRef]
Boustani, A., and Maini, B. B., 2001, “The Role of Diffusion and Convective Dispersion in Vapour Extraction Process,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 40(4), pp. 68–77. [CrossRef]
Das, S. K., 2005, “Diffusion and Dispersion in the Simulation of Vapex Process,” SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, AB, Canada, Nov. 1–3.
Das, S. K., 1998, “Vapex: An Efficient Process for the Recovery of Heavy Oil and Bitumen,” SPE J., 3(3), pp. 232–237. [CrossRef]
Chen, Q., Gerritsen, M. G., and Kovscek, A. R., 2008, “Effects of Reservoir Heterogeneities on the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Process,” SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng., 11(5), pp. 921–932. [CrossRef]
Guan, L., McVay, D. A., Voneiff, G. W., and Jensen, J. L., 2004, “Evaluation of a Statistical Method for Assessing Infill Production Potential in Mature, Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 126(3), pp. 241–245. [CrossRef]
Uddin, M., Coombe, D., Law, D., and Gunter, B., 2008, “Numerical Studies of Gas Hydrate Formation and Decomposition in a Geological Reservoir,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 130(3), p. 032501. [CrossRef]
Ju, B., Qiu, X., Dai, S., Fan, T., Wu, H., and Wang, X., 2008, “A Study to Prevent Bottom Water From Coning in Heavy-Oil Reservoirs: Design and Simulation Approaches,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 130(3), p. 033102. [CrossRef]
Vanegas, J. W. P., Deutsch, C. V., and Cunha, L. B., 2008, “Uncertainty Assessment of SAGD Performance Using a Proxy Model Based on Butler’s Theory,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, Sept. 21–24.
Butler, R. M., 1985, “A New Approach to the Modeling of Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 24(3), pp. 42–51. [CrossRef]
Azad, A., and Chalaturnyk, R. J., 2010, “A Mathematical Improvement to SAGD Using Geomechanical Modeling,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 49(10), pp. 53–64. [CrossRef]
Reis, J. C., 1992, “A Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Model for Tar Sands: Linear Geometry,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 31(10), pp. 14–20. [CrossRef]
Lamb, H., 1932, Hydrodynamics, 6th ed., Dover Publications, New York, p. 581.
Okazawa, T., 2009, “Impact of Concentration-Dependence of Diffusion Coefficient on VAPEX Drainage Rates,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 48(2), pp. 47–53. [CrossRef]
Boustani, A., 2001, “Investigation of Interfacial Mass Transfer in Vapor Extraction Process,” M. Sc. thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, pp. 22–23.
Burdine, N. T., 1953, “Relative Permeability Calculations From Pore Size Distribution Data,” J. Pet. Technol., 5(3), pp. 71–78. [CrossRef]
Kjosavik, A., and Ringen, J. K., 2000, “Relative Permeability Correlation for Mixed-Wet Reservoirs,” SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 3–5.
Sandler, S. I., 1999, Chemical, Biochemical and Engineering Thermodynamics, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Sharma, G. D., 1994, “Study of Hydrocarbon Miscible Solvent Slug Injection Process for Improved Recovery of Heavy Oil From Schrader Bluff Pool,” Department of Energy, Milne Point Unit, AK, Jan. 1–Dec. 31, Annual Report, No. DE-FG22-93BC14864.
Computer Modelling Group, 2011, GEM: Advanced Compositional Reservoir Simulator User’s Guide (Version 2011), Computer Modelling Group Limited, Calgary, AB.
Nghiem, L. X., Kohse, B. F., and Sammon, P. H., 2001, “Compositional Simulation of the Vapex Process,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 40(8), pp. 54–61. [CrossRef]
Leung, J. Y., 2012, “Scale-up of Effective Mass Transfer in Vapor Extraction Process for Heterogeneous Reservoirs,” SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 14–18.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the solvent–bitumen interface in Vapex (adapted from Ref. [6])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Illustration of the drainage area observed in a Hele-Shaw cell Vapex experiment (adapted from Ref. [6])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of solvent–bitumen interface position between Hele-Shaw experimental results [6] and proxy model predictions for the Athabasca bitumen sample in case study 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Oil saturation and solvent (CO2) mole fraction profile at a distance away from the injector–producer well pair. The oil saturation gradually changes from 1 − Swi to Sor. The shaded area indicates the diffusion zone in a porous medium.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of solvent–bitumen interface position between detailed flow simulations and proxy model predictions for the homogeneous reservoir case study 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of oil production rate as a function with time between flow simulation results and proxy predictions (flow rate at the bottom interface node divided by the tuning parameter) for case study 2: (a) entire production period and (b) production after 600 days

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of cumulative oil production as a function with time between flow simulation results and proxy predictions (flow rate at the bottom interface node divided by the tuning parameter) for case study 2: (a) entire production period and (b) production after chamber is fully developed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Absolute permeability and porosity field in x–z cross-sectional view for heterogeneous case study 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of solvent–bitumen interface position between detailed flow simulations and proxy model predictions for the heterogeneous case study 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of oil production rate as a function with time between flow simulation results and proxy predictions (flow rate at the bottom interface node divided by the tuning parameter) for case study 3: (a) entire production period and (b) production after 600 days

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of cumulative oil production as a function with time between flow simulation results and proxy predictions (flow rate at the bottom interface node divided by the tuning parameter) for case study 3: (a) entire production period and (b) production after chamber is fully developed

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In