Gas-/Steam-Slug Flooding

Enhances Recovery From a

Medium-Heavy-Oil Reservoir
Chinas Liaohe oil field contains
many small, individual reservoirs
with oil viscosities ranging from
100 to more than 50,000 cp.
Because of pressure depletion,
steam-huff n puff (cyclic-steam)
oil recovery has reached its economic limit in several reservoirs.
Recently, a flue (exhaust) -gas/
steam-slug process was tested
to improve recovery of mediumheavy oil (viscosity less than
1,000 cp). Pilot tests used one
injection well and nine production
wells, and showed encouraging
results. Average oil production
increased and water cut decreased, reducing operating and
water-disposal costs. Cost of the
entire operation is approximately
one-half that for a boiler-generated-steam project.

This article is a synopsis of paper SPE

59332, Gas-/Steam-Slug Flooding to
Enhance Recovery From a MediumHeavy-Oil Reservoir, Deyou Wang,
Liaohe Oil Field; Tao Zhu, U. of Alaska;
Demin Chen and Feng Bao, Liaohe
Oil Field; and David Olsen, Intl.
Centre for Heavy Hydrocarbons, originally presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 35 April.

Increased Formation Pressure. The

injected volume of the mixture generated by a 3-Mg gas/steam generator is
1.5 times of that from a 23-Mg steam
generator. Also, the steam generated
by a boiler will convert back to water
after cooling in the formation, providing little increase in formation pressure. However, the flue-gas generated
by the gas/steam generator will stay in
the gas phase after cooling, providing
the potential energy to displace the
reduced-viscosity oil.
Cost Reduction. The cost of a
gas/steam generator is approximately
two-thirds the cost of a conventional
23-Mg steam generator. A gas/steam
generator consumes 104 kg of fuel oil
per hour, whereas the 23-Mg steam
generator consumes approximately
1.242 Mg of crude oil per hour.
Gravity Segregation. Segregation of
the gas in the formation may improve
vertical sweep and oil recovery. In addition to the steam, major components in
the gas/steam mixture are N2 and CO2,
both of which are gases at reservoir
conditions. After many cycles of steamhuff n puff recovery, the high-perme-

ability zones become swept. Because

the formations in Liaohe oil field are
fining upward, the residual oil is distributed primarily in the medium- and
low-permeability areas at the top of
the formation. Gravity segregation
between gas and steam may improve
sweep efficiency to recover the residual
oil at the top of each depositional
sequence within the formation.
Improved Oil Recovery. CO2 in the
gas/steam mixture can improve the
recovery in various ways. Carbonic
acid is weak but can dissolve carbonates and improve permeability. The
dissolution of CO2 into heavy oil can
reduce the viscosity of the oil and
swell the oil. Also, CO2 can reduce the
interfacial tension between oil
and water.
Simulation Results. Laboratory simulation tests indicate that the ultimate
recovery can reach 80% of the original
oil in place by injection of the fluegas/steam mixture, an increase of 45%
in oil recovery compared with steam
flooding. Fig. 1 shows the simulation
results of the gas/steam process for the
Block Du66 pilot.
Construction and Operation.
On 7 December 1998, injection began.
The gas/steam injection lasted 65 days.
Then, hot water was injected at
150 m3/d at a surface temperature of
70 to 80C.

Heavy Oil

Background
Reservoirs in this region are very
complex. Faults are well developed
and divide reservoirs into many
blocks. Within a fault block, the
cyclic deposition resulted in highly
heterogeneous layers. As the number
of steam-huff n puff cycles increases,
the formation pressure and oil/steam
ratio drop substantially.
In early 1995, a slug injection of
flue gas followed by hot water was
proposed. A full-scale gas/steam generator was installed at the pilot site in
May 1998. The pilot test of the gas/steam-slug flood was initiated on 7
December 1998. Satisfactory results
from the first pilot test resulted in
installation of three additional fluegas/steam generators.

Advantages of Gas-/
Steam-Slug Flooding
Thermal recovery of heavy oil relies on
heat and pressure. Heat can reduce the
viscosity of the crude oil, thus increasing its mobility. Pressure provides a
driving force for mobile fluids to
increase productivity. For mediumheavy oil, pressure is particularly
important because the viscosity of the
crude is low. Therefore, the gas/steam
mixture was chosen as the working
media for depleted medium-heavy-oil
reservoirs. Besides heat energy, the
gas/steam mixture has a large volume
of gas that can increase the formation
pressure. However, continuous injection of the gas/steam mixture cannot
be used because of the large differences in the mobility ratios of
gas/steam
and
heavy-oil/water.
Injecting a hot-water slug after the
gas/steam slug can control mobility

Four-Parameter Test. Pressure and

temperature profiles of the formations
were measured during gas/steam injection. The pressure and temperature
profiles indicate that, below 900 m,
the gas/steam is in a mixed phase and
the temperature curve has a sharp
turn. The better gas-/steam-absorption
layers are the oil zones at the bottom
that have better reservoir properties.
The total gas-/steam-absorption thickness is approximately 34% of the total
thickness of the oil zones.
Formation Pressure. Formation pressure before pilot testing was 1.01 MPa.
65

JUNE 2000

The formation pressure was measured

at 2.47 MPa in a shut-in well approximately 100 m from the injector.

Heavy Oil

Fluid Level. Fluid levels in production

wells were measured before and after
gas/steam injection and approximately
one month after the gas/steam injection was terminated. Of the six wells
tested, three were shut-in, providing
static fluid levels. The static fluid levels above the formation had more than
tripled, an indication that the formation pressure increased because of
gas/steam injection. The flowing fluid
levels in producing wells increased significantly also, which, in turn,
increased well productivity.
Scaling Problem and Air-Compressor Failures. During the 65 days of
operation, approximately 15 days were
spent troubleshooting. Two major
problems were experienced: scaling of
the nozzle and air-compressor failure.
Scaling was caused by use of untreated
underground water as feed water for
the generator. The problem was solved
by adding a water softener. An
improper design of the compressor led
to the high-pressure cylinder overheating during operation.
Corrosion. It was anticipated that
CO2 in the gas/steam mixture would
cause corrosion of the tubing string. In
the gas-/steam-huff n puff tests in
three completed pilot tests, corrosion
was not a problem. However, because
the gas/steam tests ran for only eight
days during the huff n puff process, it
is too early to conclude that no corrosion will occur. Also, the tubing string
has not been pulled for inspection.
Because CO2 corrosion is still a serious
concern, use of a corrosion inhibitor is
under consideration.
Gas Channeling. Gas channeling was
found in three wells during the later
period of the pilot test. Gas channeling
was not as severe as expected. Gas
breakthrough was observed in three of
the wells during the last several days of
gas/steam injection. Gas channeling
diminished after water-slug injection.
Severe gas channeling was encountered in the second pilot test. During
the fourth day of gas/steam injection,
N2 was found in a producer in another well group, approximately 300 m
from the central injector. The major
reasons for gas channeling are low for-

mation pressure, high injection rate, and

heterogeneity of
the reservoir.
The large, unfavorable mobility
ratio between
the
injected
gas/steam and
the reservoirs
medium-heavy
oil may be
another factor. Fig. 1Simulation results of the gas/steam process for the
H i g h - p e r m e - Block Du66 pilot. PV=pore volume.
ability
thief
zones are expected in the formation.
process for medium-heavy-oil reserIn an attempt to solve early gas- voirs. This technology can be economchanneling problems, a three-phase- ically beneficial because of the low
foam profile modification was applied capital cost of equipment, substantial
in the third-well-group pilot. Foam reduction in fuel cost, and increase in
was injected before injecting the oil production.
gas/steam slug. After foam injection,
the well was displaced with N2 and, Summary
as a result of the foam, gas channel- On the basis of the pilot tests in Well
ing was not observed during the Group 43-530 of Block Du66, the
gas-/steam-slug-flood test for this gas/steam technology seems feasible.
well group.
Because of the technical success and
economic benefit, the flue-gas-/steamResults and Discussion
slug process has been applied to three
Pilot-test data indicate that the forma- other well groups. The gas/steam
tion pressure increased from 1 MPa to injection provided both heat and
approximately 3 MPa after gas-/steam- potential energy for the reservoirs.
slug flooding in Well Group 43-530. Both static and flowing fluid levels in
Static fluid levels increased nearly the test wells increased significantly.
three times, while the producing-well
Oil production increased from
fluid levels increased by more than 1.8 Mg/d before the tests to a stabilized
100 m. The four wells that had been rate of 15 Mg/d in December 1999 in
closed because of low productivity the pilot-test well group. Water cut
before the gas/steam injection have all dropped from 84% to 62%.
been put back on production. The
Hot-water injection following the
water cut dropped from 84% at the gas/steam slug may maximize the benbeginning of the test to 62% in efits of the process. After water injecSeptember 1999.
tion, oil production increased steadily.
Oil production peaked in the first
Corrosion may be a problem for the
month (March 1999) after terminating flue-gas/steam injection; therefore,
gas/steam injection. Both the fluid and protection (mitigation) should be conoil production decreased after the sidered. Pilot tests in Liaohe field sites
three months of the pilot test. It is indicate that the gas/steam generator
assumed that the decrease in fluid and can reduce the capital-equipment and
oil production is natural depletion. operating cost.
Hot-water injection started on 20 April
Three-phase foams provided good
1999, and oil production increased mobility control for gas channeling.
steadily after the water-injection step. However, gas channeling is a major
The production stabilized four months challenge for the gas/steam oil-recovJPT
after water injection, which indicates ery process.
the water injection hit its target.
Water cut declined gradually after
water injection. The pilot-test results Please read the full-length paper for
indicate that the original design of the additional detail, illustrations, and refgas-/steam-slug process may provide erences. The paper from which the
an alternative method to improve oil synopsis has been taken has not been
recovery in the later life of a thermal peer reviewed.

66
JUNE 2000