Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
OIL ASSOCIATION
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
PS2005-371
Heavy-Oil Fluid Testing With Conventional and Novel Techniques
N. Goodarzi, J. Bryan, A. Mai, and A. Kantzas, U. of Calgary/Tomographic Imaging and Porous Media Laboratory
Copyright 2005, SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 13 November 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA Program Committee
following review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of
the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Petroleum SocietyCanadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum, or the Canadian
Heavy Oil Association and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as
presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at SPE and PS-CIM/CHOA meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and PS-CIM/CHOA. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the SPE or PS-CIM/CHOA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In this paper, we propose the combined utilization of x-ray
tomography and magnetic resonance techniques for
quantification of heavy oil fluid properties. The design of
these systems is presented along with preliminary results
combined with conventional measurements. The objective is
to understand the PVT behavior of a viscous heavy oil from a
reservoir that has undergone primary production. Methane is
dissolved into the oil at ambient temperature and elevated
pressure. The pressure is later slowly depleted and the oil
PVT properties are recorded. Specifically, this paper details
measurements of oil density, formation value factor, and
solution gas-oil-ratio as a function of pressure.The
incremental benefit of the proposed nucleonic techniques is
that they provide more detailed information about that oil,
compared to conventional PVT measurements. This improves
our understanding of the foamy oil response.
Introduction
Understanding fluid behavior of heavy oils is important for
reservoir simulation and production response predictions. In
heavy oil reservoirs, the oil viscosity and density are
commonly reported, but there is little experimental data in the
literature reporting how oil properties change with pressure.
This information would be especially useful for production
companies seeking to understand and improve their primary
(cold production) response.
It is already widely known that foamy oil behavior is a
major cause for increased production in cold heavy oil
reservoirs along with sand production. Therefore it would be
valuable to first study the bulk fluid properties of live heavy
oil prior to sand pack depletion experiments. If the response of
these properties to incremental pressure reduction can be
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
....................... (1)
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
The end caps and the piston were made out of aluminum. The
vessel was pressurized with water on one side of the piston to
a value greater than the bubblepoint, and then a known volume
of live oil was transferred to the piston. The waterside of the
piston cylinder was connected to a pressure transducer and a
Jefri pump, and then the piston cylinder was placed on the
scanning bed. In the experiments, a known volume of water
was withdrawn daily, using the precision Jefri pump. The
system was scanned before and after the water volume was
removed.
water
Jefri Pump
Pressure
Transducer
CT
Scanner
live oil
move to scan
Unfortunately, the same vessel could not be used for the NMR
because the borehole of the magnet is only 4.45 cms, so a
smaller 3.81 cm outer diameter vessel was used instead. The
pressure vessel used in the NMR experiment is filled with live
oil and connected to an external piston cylinder with live oil
one side and water on the other. A pressure transducer is
connected to the pressure vessel before the piston cylinder.
The waterside is connected to a precision ISCO pump and
recorded volumes are withdrawn daily. NMR measurements
are taken before and after the water is withdrawn.
live
oil
NMR
Pressure
Transducer
water
ISCO Pump
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
13.06
981.5
16210
8000
CT Data
7000
NMR Data
6000
Pressure
5000
(kPa)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
20
4060
Volume Redrawn (ml)
80
100
Figure 4 shows axial scanned images taken at a single crosssection at different times during the experiment. The images
are: (a) before the bubble point at time zero, (b) just after the
gas becomes continuous, (c) the free gas grows with
expansion of the vessel and (d) at end of experiment at high
depletion rate not at equilibrium.
In all of the images taken, micro bubbles were never
evident in the oil phase, since the standard deviation within the
oil phase portion remained consistently low at an average
value of 7.2. If bubbles of gas were formed within the oil then
the standard deviation of the oil phase would be expected to
increase. Therefore, despite the fact that the CT images in
Figure 4 are not entirely uniform, they remained so throughout
the experiment. Only at the end of the experiment when the
pressure was depleted rapidly were gas bubbles visibly
immersed in the oil phase. Otherwise, the gas appeared as
either free gas and the oil appeared to be fairly homogenous.
The density of the oil and dissolved gas is averaged; since this
is the density of bulk fluids, the standard deviation for the oil
portion is low. The average density is plotted as a function of
pressure in Figure 6.
978
977
976
975
Density
974
(kg/m)
973
972
971
970
Before
After
2000
4000
6000
Pressure (kPa)
Figure 6. Density of the oil and dissolved gas as pressure drops.
8000
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
1.06
Oil Formation
1.05
Volume Factor
14
1.04
12
1.03
Rs (cm/cm)
10
1.02
1.01
6
1.00
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1.25
Two Phase
1.20Oil
Formation
Volume Factor
1.15
1.10
1.05
6000
4000
5000
6000
7000
4000
3000
1.00
2000
4
2000
8000
8000
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
regions of the cylinder. This is seen in the fact that the oil
phase CT numbers (and hence density) are fairly constant
throughout the oil phase in any given slice
NMR Experiment. For the heavy oil sample tested in this
study, measurements of dead oil viscosity were first made
using a Brookfield cone and plate viscometer, and live oil
viscosity above the bubble point using a capillary viscometer.
These measurements were performed at the measurement
temperature (23C). Several repeat measurements of dead oil
viscosity were also made at 30C in order to test the
homogeneity of this oil. It was observed that different oil
samples measured at 30C had slightly different measured
viscosity and NMR values, meaning that this oil is not totally
homogeneous.
For dead oils, viscosity has been observed to vary
inversely with the oil T2gm8, 9. However, for higher viscosity
oils the relationship between viscosity and T2gm is less clear.
In order to accurately predict higher viscosities, a different
form for the NMR viscosity model has been shown to be23 ,24:
........................................................... (2)=
(RHI ) T2gm
3
2.5
2
T2gm (ms)
1.5
1
0.5
0
6000
4000
2000
Pressure (kPa)
Figure 10. Oil T2gm changes with pressure.
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
constant at the measured live oil value, while below the bubble
point (dark diamonds) viscosity increases.
A trend line has been fitted through the data below the
bubble point in order to illustrate the nature of foamy oil
viscosity changes with pressure. The surprising result of
Figure 12 is that at pressures well below the bubble point, the
NMR viscosity is not significantly higher than the live oil
value. At pressures approaching ambient pressure, when most
of the gas has finally left solution (according to Figure 10), the
oil viscosity then increases much more rapidly towards the
dead oil value.
The surprising result shown in Figure 12 indicates a
foamy oil viscosity response that cannot be measured with
conventional laboratory apparatuses. Repeat measurements
should be run, both with this oil and with other heavy oils
from reservoirs that can undergo primary production, in order
to verify the results shown in this figure. However, at this
point, the data seems to indicate that during the foamy oil
period of primary production in heavy oil reservoirs, the slow
gas liberation from the oil keeps the oil viscosity close to that
of its live oil value. This means that the improved response
seen in many of these heavy oil reservoirs can at least in part
be due to the oil viscosity staying low until the reservoir
pressure has declined well below the bubble point. This, along
with the poor gas mobility observed in the CT experiments, is
consistent with the improved rates and recoveries seen during
primary production of heavy oil.
One last set of data that was extracted from these
experiments is the comparison of NMR spectra properties,
immediately before and after a volume depletion step. Figure
13 shows the T2gm vs. pressure response for the data collected
right before (Pbef) and right after (Paft) a volume depletion.
0.95
0.90
0.85
Oil RHI
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0
0.5
11.5
Oil T2gm (ms)
2.5
3
2.8
T2gm (ms)
2.6
12000
10000
2.4
Viscosity
8000
(cP)
6000
2.2
Pbef
Paft
2
7000
4000
6000
5000
4000
Pressure (kPa)
2000
0
8000
6000
4000
Pressure (kPa)
2000
3000
8
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA
97803
18.indicative
Islam, M.R.
Chakma, A.:
Mechanics of Bubble
is
of and
the so-called
supersaturation
effect Flow in
Heavy Oil
Reservoirs,
20070 presented
at theIn
1990
associated
with
many fastSPE
laboratory
experiments.
short
California
Regional Meeting,
Ventura,
April
core
floods, therefore,
one would
expect
the 4-6.
oil viscosity
19. Poon, to
D. follow
and Kisman,
K.: Non
Effects
behavior
the trend
of theNewtonian
Paft data,
whileoninthe
longer
Primary
of Heavy
the
core
floodsProduction
or at the field
scale,Oil
theReservoirs,
Pbef datapresented
would beatmore
1991 CIM/AOSTRA Technical Conference, Banff, April 21-24.
appropriate.
20. Claridge,
E.L.CT
and
Prats,
A Proposed
Model
and
As with the
data,
theM.:
results
presented
in this
paper
Mechanism for Anomalous Heavy Oil Behavior, SPE 29243
are a preamble to actual foamy oil sandpack depletion
presented at the 1995 International Heavy Oil Symposium
experiments. These measurements should also be possible if
Calgary 19-21.
the
foamy oil is in sand, meaning that the live and foamy oil
21. Shen, C. and Batycky, J.: Some observations of mobility
viscosity
response
can also
be determined
enhancement
of heavy
oils potentially
flowing through
sand pack during
under
ansolution
actual depletion
study.
gas drive, presented at the 1996 Annual Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, June 10-12.
22. Albartamani , N.S. and Farouq Ali, S.M.: Investigation of
Foamy Oil Phenomena in Heavy Oil Reservoirs SPE 54084
Conclusions
presented at the 1999 SPE International Thermal Operations and
Heavy
Symposium,
Bakersfield,
March
17-19.
This
basicOilstudy
of liberating
gas from
live oil
and measuring
23. Bryan,
A., Moon,
D. and
Kantzas,
A.:proves
In-Situthat
Viscosity
the
fluid PVT
properties
with
pressure
CT of Oil
Sands Using
Low Field
NMR, J.
Can, Pet. Tech.,
scanning
and NMR
are valuable
non-invasive
tools2005.
for
24.
Bryan, bulk
J., Hum,
Kantzas, A.,
MacPherson,
acquiring
fluidF.,properties.
The
novelty of R.
CTand
scanning is
Hancsicsak,
T.: In-situ
Viscosity
Lowcan
Field
NMR:
that
it allows you
to acquire
visualUsing
data that
also
be A
Field
Case
Study,
presented
at
the
2005
International
quantified into meaningful properties such as density, oil
Symposium
of thefactor
Society
Core
Analysts,
formation
volume
andofthe
solution
gasToronto,
oil ratio.Canada,
This
August 21 25.
data is obtained along the total length of the piston cylinder,
25. Kantzas, A., Bryan, J.L, Mai., A.T. and Hum, F.M.,:
and measurements are made in three dimensions through the
Applications of Low Field NMR Techniques in the
useCharacterization
of the CT crossofsections.
CTExtraction
measurements
have
Oil SandsThese
Mining,
and Upgrading
been
used
to
show
definitively
the
differences
between
Processes, Technical Note, Can. J. Chem. Engg, (Feb. 2005)
conventional
and foamy oil PVT.
83, 1.
Using the
NMR
conjunction
to CT scanner
goes a in
step
26. Bryan,
J., Mai,
A.,inHum,
F. and Kantzas,
A.: Advances
Oil
further
by also
providing
live oil and Using
foamyLow
oil viscosity
and Water
Saturation
Measurements
Field NMR,
information.
This data 97802,
cannot presented
be generated
using
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA
at theaccurately
2005 International
flowing
viscosity
apparatuses,
the highly compressible
Thermal
Operations
and Heavydue
OiltoSymposium,
Calgary,
Canada,
Novin1foamy
3. oil. NMR is able, however, to provide
gases
present
Applied
Petroleum
27. Craft,
B.C. and Hawkins, M.:
estimates of the oil viscosity
both above
and below
the bubble
Reservoir
Engineering,
second edition,
Prentice-Hall
point.
The results
of this experiment
indicate
that even Inc.,
at
Englewood
(1991)
34.point, the foamy oil viscosity
pressures
wellCliffs,
belowNJthe
bubble
is not significantly less than that of the live oil, meaning that
the high rates and recoveries associated with foamy oil flow
are at least in part due to a reduced oil viscosity.
The results presented in this work demonstrate that
improvedmeasurementtechniques,improveour
understanding of the foamy oil mechanism.
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
unit mass)
RS = the gas-oil-ratio of the gas in solution with the oil
(cm/cm)
T2gm = oil geometric mean relaxation time (ms).
= empirical coefficient in the NMR viscosity expression
= empirical exponent in the NMR viscosity expression
= the oil viscosity (mPas)
bulk = bulk density (kg/m)
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Acknowledgements
We thank Rob Scorey and the other staff of the University of
Calgary Engineering Machine Shop for constructing the
pressure vessels in such a short period of time. Also, special
thanks to Michael Benedek, at Tomographic Imaging and
Porous Media Laboratories, for his help. We also
acknowledge the Canadian Research Chair in Energy and
Imaging (Dr. Kantzas) and affiliates (Shell/Albian Sands,
Nexen, Devon, PetroCanada, Canadian Natural, ET Energy),
COURSE and the Province of Alberta Graduate Scholarship
for funding.
Nomenclature
BO = single phase (oil) formation volume factor
BT = two phase (oil and gas) formation volume factor
CTnumber = the normalized CT number
RHI = oil relative hydrogen index (normalized amplitude per
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.