Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

Steam Flooding

Introduction:
A method of thermal recovery in which steam generated at surface is injected into
the reservoir through specially distributed injection wells. When steam enters the
reservoir, it heats up the crude oil and reduces its viscosity. The heat also distills
light components of the crude oil, which condense in the oil bank ahead of the
steam front, further reducing the oil viscosity. The hot water that condenses from
the steam and the steam itself generate an artificial drive that sweeps oil toward
producing wells. Another contributing factor that enhances oil production during
steam injection is related to near-wellbore cleanup. In this case, steam reduces the
interfacial tension that ties paraffins and Asphaltenes to the rock surfaces while
steam distillation of crude oil light ends creates a small solvent bank that can
miscibly remove trapped oil. Steam flooding is also called continuous steam
injection or steam drive.

Screening Criteria
Parameter
Oil gravity (API)
In situ oil viscosity
(cP)
Oil
saturation(fraction)
Oil content (bbls/acreft)
Net thickness(ft)
Porosity( )
(fraction)
Permeability (mD)
Transmissibility (mDft/cP)
Depth (ft)
Reservoir
pressure(psi)
Reservoir

Criteria
Values
9-25
20-20,000

12-25
<1000

>0.4

Average Field
Data
14.6
3000
>0.45

500-780
>20
>0.2

>30
0.3

70.5
0.31

>200
>5

~1000

2300

300-5000
<1670

<3000

1182
300
29

Temperature ( )
Gas cap
Aquifer
Fracture
Clay

Design Criteria

Not Desirable
Not Desirable
No
Low

Water Oil Ratio


Steam Quality (%)
Steam Pressure (psig)
Spacing (acres)

<10
80-85
<2500
2-10

60
295
4.5

Field Cases
Duri Steam Flood (DSF) Project in Indonesia

Field Data:
Location: Riau Province, on the island of Sumatra, in Indonesia (second largest field
in the country)
Production Rate : 200,000 BOPD (by steam flood)
Area: 15,000 ac of reservoir
Number of Production Wells: 4000
Reservoir depth: 600ft
Net pay: 109ft.
Porosity: 36%
Permeability: 1550mD
Reservoir temperature :100F.
Oil viscosity at the reservoir temperature :157 cP
API gravity of oil: 23
Start of Production Year: 1958
Start Steam Stimulation Year: 1967
Description of Project, Problems and Solutions:
With the success of a pilot project initiated in 1975, steam flood was expanded in an
area consisting of 95 inverted seven-spot patterns, each 11.625 ac in size, which
was the main pattern used in the field. There were more than 420 producers.
The earlier design was a concentric injection string in which one string of tubing was
inside another. The problem was that heat transfer between the flow streams
resulted in high-quality steam entering one interval, while low quality stream or
even hot water entering into another. That caused one sand being preferentially
heated over the other. The solutions employed were: (1) to utilize a downhole choke
configuration to inject steam down a single string and use the principle of critical
flow to achieve a proper split between sands; and (2) to use "twin" existing injectors

for patterns in which the total rate per sand was greater than that achievable with
the choke design.
It was discovered that "hybrid" development scheme with a combination of 15.5acre five- and nine-spot patterns maximized oil recovery and improved economics.
Additionally, by changing to nine-spot patterns in the thickest net pay areas, the
producer-to-injector ratio improved from 2.4 for seven-spot patterns to 3.5 for ninespot patterns.

Project Importance
The DSF project is unique in that it simultaneously involved the management of
existing steam flood areas, the development of new steam flood areas, and the
design of future areas to maximize both oil recovery and production efficiency.
Qi-40 Block in Laohe, China

Field Data
Location: Huang Xi Ling field, Laohe Field, China
Average porosity: 25% permeability: 1.49 D
Average oil column: 60.5 m
Net-to-gross ratio: 0.484
Reservoir depth 910-1045 m original reservoir pressure 8-1 0 MPa
Original reservoir temperature: 36.8C at 850 m
The dead oil viscosity at 50C is: 2639 mPa-s
In situ oil viscosity was 3750 mPa-s
Oil Saturation: 0.57 (before steam flooding)
Recovery factor: 24% (before steam flooding)

Operational Description:
The block had been under steam soak since June 1987. The initial development plan
was to use 200 m square patterns in the areas of greater than 15m reservoir
thickness. Two development patterns were used in the areas of greater than 20 m
reservoir thickness. Before SF, oil saturation was 0.57, and the recovery factor was
24%.
A simulation study was conducted to compare continuous steam soak, WF and SF in
1997. The results for the Lian II are shown in Table 15.4 (Ma et al., 2005).
The results showed that if steam soak was continued, the recovery factor would be
low. If converted to hot WF, the recovery factor was not significantly increased. The
recovery factor was the highest if converted to SF.

The conversion of steam soak to hot WF was tried starting in April 1996. Three
inverted five-spot patterns with well distance of 141m were used. After conversion,
the water cut increased from 31% before the conversion to 85% within 2 months.
The oil rate decreased. The WF was stopped in May 1997. And it was decided to
convert steam soak to SF.
Four inverted nine-spot patterns of a well distance of 70 m were initially steam
soaked in January 1998, and converted to SF in October 1998.There were 4
injectors, 21 producers and 2 observation wells. The performance may be divided
into three phases.
Phase I, from the start of conversion to March 1999, the group liquid rate increased
from 154 to 330 tid, and water cut increased from 63.3% to 90%. The oil rate
decreased from 56 to 30 tid following the trend from steam-soak period.
Phase II, March-July 1999, six low-liquid-rate wells were steam soaked. The group
liquid rate increased to 440 tid, the water cut decreased slightly, and the oil rate
increased to 70 tid.
Phase III, from July 1999 on, the group liquid rate increased to 578 tid by March
2000, but decreased to 470 tid during August-September 2000 owing to well sand
production and low pumping efficiency. The oil rate fluctuated within 35-125 tid.
Until the end of 2003, the cumulative OSR was 0.21, the SF recovery factor was
40.3%, and the total recovery factor including steam soak was 64.3%. The pilot was
extended to include seven injectors in July 2003. The SF was continued until the end
of 2004. By that time, 815 tons/d of steam was injected, and the average
production rate was 7.8 tons/d per well in the expanded pilot area. The water cut
was 83.3% and the OSR was 0.2. Compared with the steam-soak recovery factor,
17.65%incremental oil recovery was obtained. It was predicted that the incremental
oil recovery factor would be 24.66%, the production time would be 6 years, the
sweep efficiency by steam was 45%, and the heat efficiency would be 38.8% (Ma et
al., 2005).
The monitoring and surveillance program included (Cheng et al., 2005):
1. Periodically measure wellhead steam quality and flow rates,
2. Take downhole samples to measure downhole steam quality quarterly,
3. Measure steam profile half yearly,
4. Extended tests to monitor production performance for key wells,
5. Measure temperature profiles in observation wells,
6. Install permanent pressure gauges at key observation wells.
The measured steam profiles in injection wells showed 23.4-64.9%, indicating
overall low profiles. High-temperature profile modification was conducted. Before
modification, steam injection was stopped to convert to hot-water injection for 10-

15 days. Then high-temperature profile-modification agent was injected. After that


steam injection was resumed.
Downhole gauges were installed below production pumps to monitor pressure and
temperature. The success rate was 100%. The longest monitoring time was 6
months. The data from' 5 wells showed 230C during the initial steam-soak period,
80-90C in the middle of production period, and 60- 70C in the late production
period. The data showed a decline trend in temperature. The flow pressure was 5-6
MPa in the initial production period, but 0.2-0.3 MPa at the lowest during the late
production period. The monitoring data helped to adjust well production
parameters. For low-rate wells, more perforations were added or some chemical
stimulation measures were taken. For high-potential wells, larger pumps were
installed. For steam channeling wells, profile-modification measures were taken.
The measure steam qualities from downhole samples at 7 injection wells for 30
times were 65-73% at 30 m depth, 56-66% in a middle depth, and 50-56% at a
lower depth. The steam quality from the boiler was 75-76%.

Cyclic Steam Stimulation


Introduction:
A method of thermal recovery in which a well is injected with steam and then
subsequently put back on production. A cyclic steam-injection process includes
three stages. The first stage is injection, during which a slug of steam is introduced
into the reservoir. The second stage, or soak phase, requires that the well be shut in
for several days to allow uniform heat distribution to thin the oil. Finally, during the
third stage, the thinned oil is produced through the same well. The cycle is repeated
as long as oil production is profitable. Cyclic steam injection is used extensively in
heavy-oil reservoirs, tar sands, and in some cases to improve injectivity prior to
steam flood or in situ combustion operations. Cyclic steam injection is also called
steam soak or the huff `n puff method.

Screening Criteria
Parameter
Oil gravity (API)
In situ oil viscosity
(cP)
Oil
saturation(fraction)
Net thickness (m)
Net/ gross ratio
,fraction
Porosity( )

Criteria Values
8-35
50-350000

Design Criteria
<15
4000

Average Field Data


14.4
5247

>6
>0.4

>9

24.2

>0.18

0.35

0.32

>0.4

(fraction)
Permeability (mD)
Transmissibility
(mD-ft/cP)
Depth,m
Gas cap
Aquifer
Fracture
Clay
Steam Quality (%)
Steam
Pressure(psig)
Injection Time, days
Soak time, Days
Number of Cycles
Cycle lengths,
months

>50
>5

1000

1736

<1525
Not Desirable
Not Desirable
No
Low

<915

518

80-85
~1500

900

14-21
1-4
3-5
~6

11
6.25
3
~6

Case studies:
Cold Lake in Alberta, Canada
This was the largest CSS project in oil sands. Cold Lake was one of the four major
Alberta oil sands deposits.

Field Data
Oil in Place: 160 billion barrels
Oil API gravity: 10.2API
Oil Viscosity: 100,000mPa-s at 13C reservoir temperature
Reservoir depth: 300 to 600 m
Porosity: 37%
Permeability: 3000 mD
Reservoir thickness: 33 m
Reservoir Pressure: 450 psi
Reason for Steam Stimulation
The reservoir depth of 300 to 600 m. dictated that the oil was too deep to be
produced by surface mining or too viscous to be pumped at a reasonable rate at
original conditions of 13C and 450 psi.
Description of the Project

Esso Resources Canada began laboratory and engineering studies in the early
1960s, progressing to small-scale field pilots in 1964. In order to provide a sound
planning base for future operations, an evaluation program of drilling and coring
was started in 1973.
Because Cold Lake oil (bitumen) at reservoir conditions (450 psi and 13C) was
practically immobile, it was necessary to stress the formation to the point of
yielding for steam injection. It was found that the Clearwater formation of main
interest would yield to a downhole pressure of 1300psi. The initial breakdown
pressure might be 30-50% higher. With high injection pressure, vertical and
horizontal fractures were generated to accommodate large volumes of hot fluids.
The Ethel pilots were initiated in late 1964 and operated until 1970. The stimulation
wells were completed in the Clearwater bitumen zone and were stimulated through
eight cycles. The size of steam treatments ranged from 3000 to 5000 bbl. Gas was
injected with steam in seven of the cycles, and air and water with steam were
injected in two cycles. These additives were not convinced to be beneficial.
A soak period of about 5 days was unusually allowed for heat dissipation in the
reservoir. The well was then opened for production for a few weeks which might
continue for 5-8 months, depending on the fluid temperature and observed decline
in oil rate.
In October 1969, a bottom water 5-spot steam flood was initiated. The flood
contained one central producer, four steam injectors, and four confining producers,
all of which were open to the bottom water. The objective was to determine whether
heating conformance in the oil zone could be improved by injecting steam into the
more mobile lower water zone. The rate of vertical heating was found to be slow
and the experiment was terminated in April 1970.
Steam generation and fluid handling facilities were up scaled to the commercial
scale, based on the pilot tests and engineering studies: 20% bitumen recovery, well
production rate of 80 bbl/day over an average of 6 year life, and 0.4 OSR.

Du 66 Block in the Liao Shuguang Field, China


Oil-bearing area: 4.9 km2
Original oil in place (OOlP): 39.4 million tonnes
Reservoir depth: 800-1200 m
Average reservoir thickness: 42.1 m
Average permeability: 780 mD
Average porosity: 25%
Average thickness of clay interbeds: >3 mm
net-to-gross ratio: 0.5 Oil viscosity: 300-2000 mPa-s.
Reservoir temperature: 47-54C

Reservoir pressure: 9.69-11.04 mPa

Project Description
Cyclic steam injection was initiated at the well Shu-I-37-35 in March 1985. Steam
was injected from March 16 to March 27 for 12 days. A total of 2302 tons of steam
was injected. The well was under natural flow for 3 days. The average oil rate was
104tons/day. Steam was injected again from April 5 to April 16, 1985. The total
steam injection was 2554 tons. Then there was a steam soak for 2 days followed by
8 days of natural flow and 237.2 days of pumping. The cumulative OSR was 2.9.
The steam injection was expanded in 1986. The injection patterns were in 200 m
square patterns (5-spot patterns). By October 1989, a total of 187 wells had been
drilled according to the development plan. Afterward, new wells were drilled to
adjust the injection patterns. By February 1990, a total of 358 wells had been drilled
including 200 producers, 138 injectors, and 20 observation wells. At a later time,
infill wells were drilled.
In September 1991, a steam flooding pilot was initiated. By December 1993, 343
wells had been drilled with 325 wells open. The total oil rate was 1496.4tons/day,
the water cut was 46.7%. The recovery factor was 9.64%. The cumulative OSR was
1.01. The cumulative oil production was 1.3-2.3 times that of the analog block, Du
84 block, where water flooding was implemented.
During 1994-1998, more infill wells were drilled. After 1998, no new wells were
drilled. In the Du 166 and Du 97 well patterns, hot water was added in the steam
stream. In the well Shu-1-45-31 well pattern, water alternate- steam injection and
hot water injection were tested.
In June 2003, the Du 66 block had 538 wells with 428 wells open, 36 hot water or
steam flooding wells with 24 wells open, and 10 observation wells. The water cut
was 62.6%, the recovery factor was 19.76%, and the cumulative OSR was 0.64. The
average oil rate was 1.5 tons/day. The average reservoir pressure was 1.2 mPa,
significantly reduced compared with the initial reservoir pressure. The average
cycles were 8. The initial oil rates per well and OSR in each cycle are shown in
Figure 16.13. The oil rates and OSR decreased with the cycle.
The Du 66 block was in the late stage of cyclic steam injection. The question was
whether it should be converted to steam flooding. A simulation study of a pilot zone
of four patterns showed that 55.14% recovery factor for steam flooding, 49.4% for
intermittent steam injection (2-month injection and l-month pause), and 49.8% for
steam flooding for 4 years followed by cold water flooding. The simulation results
showed steam flooding should be continued. The subsequent pilot showed that
injection profile needed to be improved before steam flooding. At the end, the main
layers were under steam flooding.
Several production techniques have been implemented. One was to use prestressed casing. Pre-stressed casings were installed in more than 250 wells. Casing
was found damaged only at 1 well Rods were heated electrically so that the oil in

the wellbore was heated and the oil viscosity was reduced. Mixing produced oil with
hot oil also reduced the oil viscosity.
Lessons Learned:

Combine thin layers into several thick layers and selectively perforate thick
layers.
Steam quality should be high in such reservoir with many thin layers.
Take measures to prevent clay swelling.
Use packers to achieve steam injection in separate layers to reduce steam
crossflow between layers or between wells.

Jin 45 Block in Liaohe Huanxiling Field, China


Field Data
Aquifer support: active edge and bottom aquifer
Area 9.05 km2
Average well oil rate: 9 tons/day
Water cut: 67.2%.
Reservoir depth: 890-1180 m
Average porosity: 29%
Average Permeability: 800 mD respectively
There were two groups of layers which had two separate water-oil contacts: 10201060 and 1120-1160 m. Both layers had edge and bottom aquifers.
Reservoir temperature was 44.6-50C
Initial reservoir pressure: 10 mPa
Oil viscosity at 50C: 486-7696 mPa-s.

Project Description
Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) was tested from May 1985 to July 1986. Edge
aquifer broke in the test well 18-24 during the third cycle. Starting in 1986, steam
soak was implemented in the entire block using four developing layers. Square
patterns of 167m well distance were used. By June 1991, a total of 295 wells were
drilled with 232 well open.
During the first cycle, 89% of surveyed 171 wells could flow naturally in the
beginning. For the surveyed 111 wells, the percentages of. Production from natural
flow in the entire cycle were 23.3 in the first cycle, 13.3 in the second cycle, and 3.6
in the third cycle. This was because of strong edge and bottom aquifer to provide
pressure support. The performance in the first two or three cycles was good. After

that, aquifer broke in and the water cut was above 50%. And the oil rate decreased
significantly. However, for the wells near edge and bottom aquifer, oil rate
decreased more slowly, especially in the first and second cycles. For the wells in the
top center area, oil rate and pressure decreased faster; and when water broke in,
pressure built up, water cut rose, and steam soak performance became poorer. On
the average, the maximum cycles of a single well were 6-7, and the CSS lasted
about 5 years.
Lessons Learned:

Although edge and bottom aquifer provided pressure support and increased
oil rate in the first two cycles, the water breakthrough reduced the number of
cycles and deteriorated the steam soak performance. To control the aquifer
breakthrough, larger pumps were used in edge wells. For some water coning
wells, water shutoff workover was performed.
Steam was injected separately into layers so that the steam injection rates in
different layers were controlled.
It was observed that steam injected broke through neighbor wells. This was
because injection pressure was too high, some fractures were formed; and
steam broke through along faults. Therefore, steam injection rate, injection
pressure, and injection strength should be controlled.
Sand production was a problem. Measures must be taken to control sand
production.

Gaosheng Field, China


Field Data
Location: Liaohe, China
Drive Mechanism: gas cap, bottom water (due to a barrier so that water coning was
not observed)
Gas-oil level 1510 m
Oil-water level: 1690 m
Reservoir depth: 1500-1800 m
Developed area: 14.5 km2
In the horizontal direction, there were seven blocks among which the blocks 3, 246,
and 3618 were the mainly oil-bearing blocks.
In the vertical direction, there were eight layers with layers Ll-L4 were gas-bearing
layers, LS, L6, and L7 mainly oil layers (88% oil in place), and L8 was the aquifer
layer
Average reservoir thickness: 67.7 m
Porosity: 22-26%
Air permeability: 1000-2300 mD

Reservoir temperature at 1600m; 60C


Initial reservoir pressure: 16.1mPa
In-situ oil viscosity: 74-60S mPa-s
Decreased oil viscosity: 6 mPa-s at temperature: 200-220C

Project Description
Initially the field was produced by mixing light oil and heating rod pumps. Starting in
September 1982, CSS was tested and found successful. In 1984, a development
plan was designed which included:

Five-spot patterns of 210 m later infilled to 50O m.


Separately developing LS, L6, and L7 because of existence of gas cap and
bottom water.
Four phases: initial depletion by mixing light oil and heating rod pumps, CSS,
steam flooding, and cold water flooding.
Completion included gravel packing, wiring wrapped screen, and perforated
pre-stressed casing.
Wells were drilled along the gas-oil ring in LS to make use of gas cap energy
and control pressure.

Because the reservoir was deep, it was important to reduce heat loss through
wellbores. Measures to reduce heat loss included tubing insulation, hightemperature metal packer, and filling nitrogen in the annulus. The heat loss was
controlled to be less than 12%.
It was observed that the back-produced water was only 7.8% of the injected. Such
low flow back was caused by high content of clay (7-10%), especially
montmorillonite (90%). Clay swelling adsorbed a lot of water and reduced
permeability. The cumulated water slowed down the heat dissipation into the
reservoir during injection. To solve this problem, surfactants and chemicals to
prevent clay swelling were added in the steam. Adding nitrogen in the steam also
helped water production. Adding thin film spreading agents also helped.
To stop gas cap breakthrough, several wells were drilled to produce gas under a
controlled mode. The pressure of gas cap was controlled not lower than 8 mPa, and
the pressure difference between gas cap and oil layer was controlled.

Вам также может понравиться