0
Research Papers: Petroleum Engineering

An Experimental Study of the Post-CHOPS Cyclic Solvent Injection Process

[+] Author and Article Information
Zhongwei Du

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science,
University of Regina,
Regina, SK S4S 0A2, Canada
e-mail: du225@uregina.ca

Fanhua Zeng

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science,
University of Regina,
Regina, SK S4S 0A2, Canada
e-mail: fanhua.zeng@uregina.ca

Christine Chan

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science,
University of Regina,
Regina, SK S4S 0A2, Canada
e-mail: christine.chan@uregina.ca

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received May 9, 2014; final manuscript received March 4, 2015; published online March 25, 2015. Editor: Hameed Metghalchi.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 137(4), 042901 (Jul 01, 2015) (15 pages) Paper No: JERT-14-1150; doi: 10.1115/1.4029972 History: Received May 09, 2014; Revised March 04, 2015; Online March 25, 2015

Cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS) has been applied successfully in many oil fields in Canada. However, typically only 5–15% of the original oil in place (OOIP) is recovered during cold production. Therefore, effective follow-up techniques are of great importance. Cyclic solvent injection (CSI), as a post-CHOPS process, has greater potential than continuous solvent injection to enhance heavy oil recovery. Continuous solvent injection results in early breakthrough due to the existence of wormholes; while in CSI process, the existence of wormholes can increase the contact area of solvent and heavy oil and the wormholes also provide channels that allow diluted oil to flow back to the wellbore. In this study, the effects of wormhole and sandpack model properties on the performance of the CSI process are experimentally investigated using three different cylindrical sandpack models. The length and diameter of the base model are 30.48 cm and 3.81 cm, respectively. The other two models, one with a larger length (i.e., 60.96 cm) and the other with a larger diameter (i.e., 15.24 cm), are used for up-scaling study in the directions parallel and perpendicular to the wormhole, respectively. The porosity and permeability of these models are about 35% and 5.5 Darcy typically. A typical western Canadian oil sample with a viscosity of 4330 mPa·s at 15 °C is used. And pure propane is selected as the solvent. The experimental results suggest that the existence of wormhole can significantly increase the oil production rate. The larger the wormhole coverage is, the better the CSI performance obtained. In terms of the effect of wormhole's location, a reservoir or well with wormholes developed at bottom is more favorable for post-CHOPS CSI process due to the gravity effect. The production of the CSI process can be divided into two phases: early time chamber rising and late time chamber spreading phases. The oil recovery factor in the chamber rising phase is almost independent of the sandpack model diameter; and the oil relative production rates (the oil production rate divided by the OOIP) in two models with different diameters are close during the chamber spreading phase due to similar solvent dispersion rate. It is also found that if the wormhole length is the same, the sandpack model length hardly affects the oil production rate in the earlier stage. In terms of the effects of the wormhole orientation, the well with a horizontal wormhole is inclined to get a good CSI performance. Through analyzing the experimental data, a relationship of oil production rate to drainage height is also obtained and verified.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Istchenko, C. M., and Gates, I. D., 2011, “The Well-Wormhole Model of Cold Production of Heavy Oil Reservoirs,” SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition, Dec. 12–14, Kuwait. [CrossRef]
Istchenko, C. M., and Gates, I. D., 2012, “The Well-Wormhole Model of CHOPS: History Match and Validation,” SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Jun. 12–14, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [CrossRef]
Mohebbifar, M., Ghazanfari, M., and Vossoughi, M., 2014, “Experimental Investigation of Nano-Biomaterial Applications for Heavy Oil Recovery in Shaly Porous Models: A Pore-Level Study,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 137(1), p. 014501. [CrossRef]
Squires, A., 1993, “Inter-Well Tracer Results and Gel Blocking Program,” The 10th Annual Heavy Oil and Oil Sands Technical Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Mar. 9.
Yeung, K. C., 1995, “Cold Production of Crude Bitumen at the Burnt Lake Project, Northeastern Alberta, Canada,” The 6th UNITAR International Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Houston, TX, Feb. 12–17.
Yuan, J. Y., Tremblay, B., and Babchin, A. A., 1999, “Wormhole Network Model of Cold Production in Heavy Oil,” International Thermal Operations/Heavy Oil Symposium, Mar. 17–19, Bakersfield, California.
Butler, R. M., and Mokrys, I. J. J., 1991, “A New Process (VAPEX) For Recovering Heavy Oils Using Hot Water And Hydrocarbon Vapour,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 30(1), pp. 1–11. [CrossRef]
Jha, K. N., Butler, R. M., Lim, G. B., et al. ., 1995, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), Houston, TX, Feb. 12–17.
Firouz, A. Q., and Torabi, F., 2012, “Feasibility Study of Solvent-Based Huff-n-Puff Method (Cyclic Solvent Injection) to Enhance Heavy Oil Recovery,” SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Jun. 12–14, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [CrossRef]
Shi, J., and Leung, J., 2014, “Semi-Analytical Proxy for Vapex Process Modeling in Heterogeneous Reservoirs,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 136(3), p. 032904. [CrossRef]
Butler, R. M., and Jiang, Q., 2000, “Improved Recovery of Heavy Oil by VAPEX With Widely Spaced Horizontal Injector and Producer,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 39(1), pp. 48–56. [CrossRef]
Knorr, K. D., and Imran, M., 2012, “Solvent-Chamber Development in 3D-Physical-Model Experiments of Solvent-Vapour Extraction (SVX) Processes With Various Permeabilities and Solvent-Vapour Qualities,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 51(6), pp. 1–18. [CrossRef]
Ivory, J., Chang, J., Coates, R., and Forshner, K., 2010, “Investigation of Cyclic Solvent Injection Process for Heavy Oil Recovery”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 49(9), pp. 22–33. [CrossRef]
Hoffman, B., and Shoaib, S., 2013, “CO2 Flooding to Increase Recovery for Unconventional Liquids-Rich Reservoirs,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 136(2), p. 022801. [CrossRef]
Jamaloei, B. Y., Dong, M., and Mahinpey, N., and Maini, B. B., 2012, “Enhanced Cyclic Solvent Process (ECSP) for Heavy Oil and Bitumen Recovery in Thin Reservoirs,” Energy Fuels, 26(5), pp. 2865–2874. [CrossRef]
Dong, M., Huang, S., and Hutchence, K., 2004, “Methane Pressure Cycling Process With Horizontal Wells for Thin Heavy Oil Reservoirs,” SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 18–20, Perth, Australia. [CrossRef]
Chang, J., and Ivory, J., 2012, “Field Scale Simulation of Cyclic Solvent Injection (CSI),” SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Jun. 12–14, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [CrossRef]
Alshmakhy, A., Philips, C., and Maini, B., 2012, “A Follow-Up Recovery Method After Cold Heavy Oil Production Cyclic CO2 Injection,” SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Jun. 12–14, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Jiang, T., Jia, X., Zeng, F., and Gu, Y., 2013, “A Novel Solvent Injection Technique for Enhanced Heavy Oil Recovery: Cyclic Production With Continuous Solvent Injection,” SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Jun. 11–13, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [CrossRef]
Jia, X., Zeng, F., and Gu, Y., 2014, “Gasflooding-Assisted Cyclic Solvent Injection (GA-CSI) for Enhancing Heavy Oil Recovery,” SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Jun. 10–12, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [CrossRef]
Forshner, K., Feng, Y., Chang, J., and Ivory, J., 2013, “Impact Of Solvent Loss during Solvent Injection Processes,” SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Jun. 11–13, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [CrossRef]
Chang, J., Ivory, J., and Beaulieu, G., 2014, “Pressure Maintenance at Post-CHOPS Cyclic Solvent Injection (CSI) Well Using Gas Injection at Offset Well,” SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Jun. 10–12, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [CrossRef]
Xu, S., Zeng, F., Gu, Y., et al. ., 2012, “Upscaling Study of Vapour Extraction Process through Numerical Simulation,” SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Jun. 12–14, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [CrossRef]
Ostos, A. N., and Maini, B. B., 2005, “An Integrated Experimental Study of Foamy Oil Flow During Solution Gas Drive,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 44(4), pp. 43–50. [CrossRef]
Tang, G. Q., Leung, T., Castanier, L. M., Sahni, A., Gadelle, F., Kumar, M., and Kovscek, A. R., 2006, “An Investigation of the Effect of Oil Composition on Heavy–Oil Solution Gas Drive,” SPE J., 11(1), pp. 58–70. [CrossRef]
Thomas, S., Ali Farouq, S. M., Scoular, J. R., et al. ., 2001, “Chemical Methods for Heavy Oil Recovery,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 40(3), pp. 56–60. [CrossRef]
Tremblay, B., Sedgwick, G., and Vu, D., 1999, “CT Imaging of Wormhole Growth Under Solution-Gas Drive,” SPE J., 2(1), pp. 37–45. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Y. P., Huang, S., and Dong, M., 2005, “Determining the Most Profitable ASP Flood Strategy for Enhanced Oil Recovery,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 44(2). [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]
Oskouei, S. J. P., Maini, B., Moore, R. G., and Mehta, S. A., 2012, “Effect of Initial Water Saturation on the Thermal Efficiency of the Steam-Assisted Gravity-Drainage Process,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 51(5), pp. 351–361. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Y. P., Maini, B. B., and Chakma, A., 2001, “Effect of Temperature on Foamy Oil Flow in Solution Gas-Drive in Cold Lake Field,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 40(3), pp. 48–55. [CrossRef]
Alkindi, A. S., Al-Wahaibi, Y. M., and Muggeridge, A. H., 2011, “Experimental and Numerical Investigation Into Oil-Drainage Rates During Vapor Extraction of Heavy Oils,” SPE J., 16(2), pp. 343–357. [CrossRef]
Wang, J., Dong, M., and Arhuoma, M., 2010, “Experimental and Numerical Study of Improving Heavy Oil Recovery by Alkaline Flooding in Sandpacks,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 49(3), pp. 51–57. [CrossRef]
Oskouei, S. J. P., Maini, B., Moore, R. G., and Mehta, S. A., 2013, “Experimental Evaluation of SAGD/ISC Hybrid Recovery Method,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 52(3), pp. 204–218. [CrossRef]
Sahni, A., Gadelle, F., Kumar, M., Tomutsa, L., and Kovscek, A. R., 2004, “Experiments and Analysis of Heavy-Oil Solution-Gas Drive,” SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng., 7(3), pp. 217–229. [CrossRef]
Mai, A., and Kantzas, A., 2009, “Heavy Oil Waterflooding: Effects of Flow Rate and Oil Viscosity,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 48(3), pp. 42–51. [CrossRef]
Mai, A., Bryan, J., Goodarzi, N., and Kantzas, A., 2009, “Insight Into Non-thermal Recovery of Heavy Oil,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 48(3), pp. 27–35. [CrossRef]
Closmann, P. J., and Seba, R. D., 1983, “Laboratory Tests on Heavy Oil Recovery by Steam Injection,” SPE AIME, 23(3), pp. 417–426.
Turta, A. T., Maini, B. B., and Jackson, C., 2003, “Mobility of Gas-in-Oil Dispersions in Enhanced Solution Gas Drive (Foamy Oil) Exploitation of Heavy Oil Reservoirs,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 42(3), pp. 48–55. [CrossRef]
Tremblay, B., Sedgwick, G., and Forshner, K., 1998, “Modeling of Sand Production From Wells on Primary Recovery,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 37(3), pp. 41–50. [CrossRef]
Kantzas, A., and Brook, G., 2004, “Preliminary Laboratory Evaluation of Cold and Post-Cold Production Methods for Heavy Oil Reservoirs Part A: Ambient Conditions,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 43(10), pp. 39–48. [CrossRef]
Zheng, S., and Yang, D., 2013, “Pressure Maintenance and Improving Oil Recovery by Means of Immiscible Water-Alternating-CO2 Processes in Thin Heavy-Oil Reservoirs,” SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng., 16(1), pp. 60–71. [CrossRef]
Tremblay, B., Sedgwick, G., and Forshner, K., 1997, “Simulation of Cold Production in Heavy-Oil Reservoirs: Wormhole Dynamics,” SPE Reservoir Eng., 12(2), pp. 110–117. [CrossRef]
Sheikha, H., and Pooladi-Darvish, M., 2009, “The Effect of Pressure-Decline Rate and Pressure Gradient on the Behavior of Solution-Gas Drive in Heavy Oil,” SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng., 12(3), pp. 390–398. [CrossRef]
Tremblay, B., and Oldakowski, K., 2002, “Wormhole Growth and Interaction in a Large Sand Pack,” J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 34(1), pp. 13–34. [CrossRef]
Sanmiguel, J., Mehta, S., and Moore, R., 2003, “An Experimental Study of Controlled Gas-Phase Combustion in Porous Media for Enhanced Recovery of Oil and Gas,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 125(1), pp. 64–71. [CrossRef]
Zendehboudi, S., Chatzis, I., Mohsenipour, A. A., and Elkamel, A., 2011, “Dimensional Analysis and Scale-up of Immiscible Two-Phase Flow Displacement in Fractured Porous Media Under Controlled Gravity Drainage,” Energy Fuels, 25(4), pp. 1731–1750. [CrossRef]
Montgomery, D. C., 2008, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 7th ed., Wiley, New York.
Farahi, M., Rasaei, M., Rostami, B., and Alizadeh, M., 2014, “Scaling Analysis and Modeling of Immiscible Forced Gravity Drainage Process,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 136(2), p. 022901. [CrossRef]
Zhang, M., Du, Z., and Zeng, F., 2014, “Upscaling Study of Cyclic Solvent Injection Process for Post-CHOPS Reservoirs Through Numerical Simulation,” SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Jun. 10–12, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of the experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Wormhole location of each test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Effect of wormhole length on the recovery factor under the model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Effect of wormhole length on the production rate under the model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Effect of wormhole length on the average production rate in phase 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Residual oil saturation pictures for different wormhole location

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of wormhole location on the recovery factor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effect of wormhole location on the production rate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of residual oil saturation pictures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effect of model diameter on the recovery factor for models 3 and 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effect of model diameter relative production rate for models 3 and 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effect of model length on the recovery factor for models 1 and 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Effect of model length on the relative production rate for models 1 and 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Effect of model orientation on the recovery factor for model 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Effect of model orientation on the production rate for model 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

The relationship of recovery factor with relative coverage of wormhole

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

The cumulative mass transfer during soaking period for test 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

The cumulative mass transfer during soaking period for test 7

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

The cumulative mass transfer during soaking period for test 8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

The correlation between the recovery factor and time during the chamber rising phase for tests 4 and 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

The correlation between the chamber height and time during the chamber rising phase for tests 4, 5, and 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

The correlation between the recovery factor and time during the chamber spreading phase for tests 4, 5, and 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

The correlation between the recovery factor and time verified by test 7

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

The correlation between the chamber height and time verified by test 7

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