SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 21530

Steam-Solvent Injection, Well LSJ-4057, Tia Juana Field,

Western Venezeula
L.G. Bracho and OA Oquendo, Maraven SA
SPE Members

Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Thermal Operations Symposium held in Bakersfield, California, February 7-8, 1991.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 750833836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT However, the percentage of original oil in

place recovered by this method is still too
low. Therefore, new techniques, to improve
The purpose of this paper is to present such percentage, have been developed. Coin-
the results obtained in the well LSJ-4057, Tia jection of steam and solvent in a steam stimu-
Juana field, Western Venezuela, by injecting lation process is one of them.
steam and solvent simultaneously.
The first test of coinjection of steam
According to laboratory tests, industrial and solvent (diesel), in Venezuela, took place
diesel, which is considered a medium weight in the well LSJ-4057, Tia Juana Field, Western
solvent, showed to be the most compatible with Venezuela, in 1987. Laboratory tests were
the crude produced in the area, and because of made to determine compatibility between dif-
its availability and lower cost, it was se- ferent solvents and the oil produced in the
lected for the pilot test. area, being industrial diesel the most appro-
priate.
During this pilot test, which correspond-
ed to the second cycle of steam injection of This paper presents the principal aspects
the well, a total of 31.5 MSTB [5 015 stock- of the steam-solvent pilot test. Also, it
tank m3 ] of steam (cold water equivalent) was includes the theoretical fundamentals on which
injected with 1876 STB [298 stock-tank m3 ] of this test was based and a brief description of
solvent, in a 3-stage injection procedure. the equipment used in the field. Production
behavior of well LSJ-4057 is considered as the
The average initial production was 301 most relevant point in this work, hence, it is
BID [47.8 m3ID], resulting 63.6% higher than discussed widely.
the average initial production rate for second
cycle wells in the same area. Also, the The advantages of inj ecting industrial
cumulative production for a 30-month period diesel with steam, in steam stimulation pro-
was 85.9% higher than that of neighboring cesses, were evidenced by the well production
wells. behavior. Initial oil production rate and
additional recovery showed improvement, and
These results suggest the potentiality of decline rates were reduced.
this technique to increase the final recovery
of oil by cyclic steam injection in heavy oil
reservoirs. THEORY AND PREVIOUS WORK

INTRODUCTION The use of solvent in thermal recovery

methods has been reported in the literature
since 1974. Originally, solvent injection was
Cyclic steam inj ection has shown to be studied to improve steam injectivity by open-
one of the most economic and effective methods ing a steam flow path 1 , but, earlier steam
for additional recovery of heavy crude. breakthrough was experimented in highly perme-
able channels. steam drive solvent-slug pro-
References and illustrations at end of paper. cess was also studied using a linear cell
83
2 STEAM-SOLVENT INJECTION, WELL LSJ-4057, TIA JUANA FIELD, WESTERN VENEZUEIA
model packed with glass beads 2 Both studies
concluded that the use of solvent in steam
drive processes improved injectivity and
mobility ratio respectively.
In 1982, Ziritt and Burger3 presented the
results of a laboratory study on the influence
of the asphaltene precipitation on the sand
permeability and the effects of injecting
solvent, either prior or simultaneously with
steam. It was found that the solvent should
be compatible with the oil in place to avoid
permeability damage by asphaltene precipita-
tion. They also concluded that coinjection of
steam with a low-viscosity solvent accelerated
oil recovery and decreased residual oil satu-
ration, as compared to solvent slug injection
prior steamflooding.
Farouq Ali and Abad 4 worked in a two non-
scaled sand packs to investigate coinjection
of steam and solvent for bitumen recovery.
They found that its recovery was dependent on
the solvent type, the treatment size, and the
solvent placement. More recently, Shu and
Hartman 5 used numerical experiments to describe
the recovery mechanism of the steam-solvent
process. It was concluded that the placement
of the solvent in the reservoir was vital in
the success of the process, and it depended on
the solvent volatility and steam movement.
Additionally, a medium volatile solvent was
more effective in increasing the total oil
production, while light solvents hastened oil
recovery.
Doscher et al 6 evaluated the use of
solvent in the performance of steam-soaking
processes by using the Boberg and Lantz ana-
lytical model. They concluded that solvents
did not provide any economic benefit in steam
stimulation operations where steam-oil ratios
were already economical.
From all these finding, a recovery mecha-
nism of the steam-solvent process could be
delineated. It was supposed that solvent
inj ected to the steam stream vaporizes and
travels with the steam front, suppressing
viscous fingering and opening longer steam
flow paths, thus heating a much larger por-
tions of the reservoir. When the solvent
reaches cooler regions in the reservoir, it
condenses and mixes with the heavy oil forming
a low-viscosity zone between the heated region
and the unaltered part of the reservoir. When
the well is produced, the transition zone
enhances the mobility ratio of the displacing
and displaced fluids, therefore the sweep
pattern is improved and consequently the total
oil recovery increases.
Next sections present the evolution of
the first pilot test of steam-solvent coin-
jection, in a steam soak process, in well LSJ-
4057, Western Venezuela.
~ESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
The well LSJ-4057 was completed in the
84
SPE 21530
"Lower Lagunillas" reservoir and belongs to
the G-2/3 steam soak project of the Tia Juana
field. with a total area of 876 acres [355
ha], 86 wells have been drilled in this pro-
ject forming hexagons with 758 ft [231 m]
between wells. Figure 1 presents the geo-
graphical situation of the project. The Lower
Lagunillas Formation is part of a southwest-
erly dipping (50) monocline and consists of a
series of unconsolidated sands with interbeds
of shale. Shale layers present poor lateral
continuity because of changes in depositional
environment.
Individual sand bodies are highly porous
(38.1% average pqrosity) and permeable (500-
1000 md), with an oil saturation of 85% of the
porous volume. oil producing sands are sepa-
rated into two main bodies, (Zone A and Zone
B) by shales averaging 20 ft [6 m] in thick-
ness. The presence of these interbeds allows
the zones to be stimulated individually. At
the Tia Juana Field , the A and B sands are
the established producing intervals. Table 1
presents a summary of average reservoir prop-
erties. Figures 2 and 3 show the structural
and isopach maps of the project, respectively.
WELL AND SOLVENT SELECTIONS
The well LSJ-4057 was selected for the
pilot test because its neighboring wells had
already completed second cycles of steam
injection, therefore, the validation of re-
sults by comparison was assured. Addition-
ally, this well is located close to the steam
generation plant, accordingly high steam
quality was also guaranteed.
Before the steam-solvent injection test,
oil samples were taken from well LSJ-4057 to
determine compatibility of the crude with
different solvents. Among these, industrial
and automotive diesel were chosen for the test
because of their availability in the area and
lower cost. From laboratory tests, industrial
diesel showed lower percentage of precipita-
tion when it was mixed with the produced oil.
Additionally, different solvent concen-
trations were used to determine the reduction
in oil viscosity. This reduction was not sig-
nificant when the solvent concentration ranged
between 5% to 10% of the steam volume, as
showed in Figure 4. Consequently, a solvent
concentration of 5% of the steam volume was
used to reduce solvent costs. The solvent
properties and laboratory results are shown in
Table 2.
WELL PERFORMANCE PRIOR STEAM-SOLVENT SOAK.
The well LSJ-4057 was completed open hole
gravel pack in the "Lower Lagunillas" sands in
1982. Figure 5 displays the current-well
completion with a typical type-log section.
with an initial production rate of 73 bopd
[11.61 m3 jDL it produced 48.5 MSTB [7 710
SPE 21530 L. G. BRACHO & O. A. OQUENDO
stock-tank m3 ] of oil in a 26-month period.
Its primary production followed the normal
trend for the area with an average annual
decline rate of 25%.
The first cycle of steam injection was
carried out with 29.4 MSTB [4 670 stock-tank
m3 ] in the lower sands of the reservoir, in
1984. The maximum production rate was 245
bopd [39 m3/D] , which declined rapidly (86.0%
annually) down to 83 bopd' [13.2 m3/D] in 8
months. After the ninth month the production
declined 35.0% annually down to 47 bopd [7.5
m3/D] after 24 months, when the cycle ended.
The cumulative oil production, for the
first cycle, reached 61.8 MSTB [9 825 stock-
tank m3 ]. Comparing with its adjacent wells,
the production behavior of the well, for this
cycle, was below typical values for the area.
The oil-steam ratio, OSR, was 2.1 B/B in
comparison to the average OSR for adj acent
wells of 3.2 B/B. Because this cycle was
restricted to the lower sands of the reser-
voir, production performance could be consid-
ered normal. The production history of the
well LSJ-4057 is shown in Figure 6 and 7.
STEAM-SOLVENT INJECTION
The steam-solvent pilot test corresponded
to the second cycle of steam injection in the
well LSJ-4057. Prior to injection, some
equipment modifications were made to inject
the solvent to the steam line. Also, storage
tanks for'the diesel and an additional pumping
system were needed to control the volumes of
the injected solvent. Figure 8 shows a sche-
matic diagram of the steam-solvent injection
system for the well LSJ-4057.
since solvent location in the reservoir
is crucial to the process performance in view
of the resultant position of the transition
zone, the procedure to place the solvent in
the reservoir was designed to provide optimum
solvent displacement. The inj ection operation
was divided in three different stages.
1. A preheating phase of 2.5 MSTB [392
m3 ] of steam only was injected to
prepare the well tubular equipments for
withstanding thermal stresses. The
average steam injection rate was 1.25
MSTB/D [196 m3/D] at 960 psig [6.6 MPa]
average injection pressure. The well
completion during injection is displayed
in Figure 9.
2. After this, solvent was added to the
stearn at a rate of approximately 5% of
the stearn volume. During 14 consecutive
days 23.5 MSTB [3 751 m3 ] of stearn were
coinjected with 1 876 STB [298 m3 ] of
solvent (Industrial diesel). The aver-
aqe injection rate was 1.78 MSTB/D [283
m3'/D] and 134 B/D [21. 3 m3/D] for the
stearn and solvent, respectively. The
injection pressure remained constant at
1 000 psig [6.9 MPa] throughout the peri-
85
3
od.
3. Finally, the stearn-solvent mixture was
displaced farther into the reservoir with
5.5 MSTB [872 m3 ] of steam alone. The
steam quality ranged between 80% and 83%
during the three stages.
PRODUCTION ANALYSIS AFTER STEAM/SOLVENT TEST
After a 27-day steam soak period, the
well LSJ-4057 was installed for production
(see Fig. 2). Its initial oil production rate
of 301 B/D [48 m3/D] represented an increase of
110 B/D [17.5 m3 /D] in comparison to the ini-
tial rate of its nearby wells, for the same
cycle.
In the SUbsequent 240 days, the well
produced at an average rate of 290 B/D [46
3
m /D] with a 10% water cut, therefore, the
annual decline rate was only 11% for this
period. The typical behavior for second-
cycled wells in this area showed annual decli-
ne rates about 68% for the same term. This
clearly suggested that the mobility ratio
improved significantly, reducing pressure drop
and enhancing oil recovery.
For the 30-month evaluation period, the
oil production declined at 43% annually with
an average oil production rate of 167 B/D
[26.5 m3/D]3 with minimum reported rate of 70
B/D [11.1 m /D]. Figure 10 presents the month-
ly average oil production rate of the well
LSJ-4057 vs. typical behavior for neighboring
wells.
The cumulative oil production, for the
period, reached 127.7 MSTB [20 302 stock-tank
m3 ], which was 86% higher than the cumulative
oil production for the adj acent wells. The
comparison of monthly cumulative oil produc-
tion between well LSJ-4057 and nearby wells is
graphically presented in Figure 11.
As showed in both figures, well perfor-
mance was clearly improved after stearn-solvent
injection. Not only production rates and oil
recovery were enhanced, but also the oil stearn
ratio (OSR) was increased. Usually, OSR for
typical second-cycled wells in the area is
approximately 2.5 B/B, while well LSJ-4057
exhibited an OSR above 4.0 B/B.
Additionally, production rate in this
cycle has lasted more than 38 months above
economic limit (50 bopd) , while regUlar cycles
reach this limit in about 24 months. However,
because of comparison purposes, the production
profile for the well LSJ-4057 and adjacent
wells were portrayed for just 30 months.
Table 3 presents a summary of the test results
compared to adjacent wells data.
Although the economic analysis of the
test is not contemplated here, the total oil
recovery shown by well LSJ-4057 suggested that
the stearn-solvent injection process, in steam
soak operations could be very profitable, even
4 STEAM-SOLVENT INJECTION, WELL LSJ-4057, TIA JUANA FIELD, WESTERN VENEZUEIA SPE 21530

for those cases where OSR were already econom- 2. Alikhan, A. A., and Farouq Ali, S. M.,
ic. "Heavy oil Recovery by Steam-Driven
Hydrocarbon Slugs from Linear Porous
Media", SPE 5109, presented at the 49 th
CONCLUSIONS Annual Fall Meeting. of SPE, Houston,
Texas ( Oct. 6-9, 1974).

Some conclusions can be drawn from the
results of this steam-solvent injection pilot
test:
1. The feasibility of injecting steam and
solvent simultaneously in a well was
demonstrated. Among additional equipment
required to accomplish this test, the
pumping system, capable of handling small
volumes, was the key factor in control-
ling solvent concentration in the steam
flow.
2. The 3-stage steam-solvent injection
procedure seems the most appropriate
method for optimum placement of the
solvent into the reservoir.
3. Although the majority of the previous
work describing the recovery mechanism
of the steam-solvent technique was
based on steamdrive processes, results
obtained from the well LSJ-4057 suggest
that this recovery mechanism also works
for steam stimulation.
3. Ziritt, J. L., and Burger, J., "Combined
Steam and Solvent Injection", 2 nd Interna-
tional Conference on the Future of Heavy
Crude and Tar Sands, UNITAR ( Feb. 7 -
17, 1982) Caracas, Venezuela, 760-772.
4. Farouq Ali, S. M., and Abad, B., " Bitu-
men Recovery from oil Sands, Using Sol-
vent in Conjunction with Steam", JCPT
(Jul.-Sep., 1976) 80-90.
5. Shu, W. R., and Hartman, K. J., "Effect
of Solvent on Steam recovery of Heavy
Oil", SPE 14223, presented at the 60 th
Annual Technical Conference of SPE, Las
Vegas, Nevada (sep. 22 - 25, 1985).
6. Doscher, T. M., Ershaghi, I., Herzberg,
D., and Gourene, Z. S., " An Economic
Evaluation of Solvent/Steam Stimulation",
JPT (August, 1979), 951-954.

4. The average initial production, for the

well LSJ-4057 after steam-solvent stimu-
lation was 301 bopd, resulting 63.6%
higher than the average initial produc-
tion rate for second-cycled wells in the
same area. Also, the cumulative produc-
tion for a 30-month period was 85.9%
higher than other neighboring wells.
5. These results suggest the potentiality of
this technique to increase the recovery
factor by cyclic steam injection in heavy
oil reservoirs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report has been possible only by the

efforts of many people in the Production
Operations and Petroleum Engineering Depart-
ments of MARAVEN, S.A .. Considerable support
was given by INTEVEP, S.A. in performing the
laboratory experiments reported. The authors
also wish to thank the management of MARAVEN
S.A. and Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. for per-
mission to pUblish this work.

REFERENCES

1. Farouq Ali, S. M., and Snyder, S.G.,

"Miscible Thermal Methods Applied to a
Two-Dimensional, Vertical Tar Sand Pack,
with Restricted Fluid Entry", JCPT,
(Oct.-Dec. 1973) 20 - 26.

86
 SPE 21530

TABLE 1.- RESERVOIR AND FLUID PROPERTIES

Total project area, acres 876

Average reservoir depth, ft 1 746
Average reservoir net pay, ft 105
Initial reservoir pressure, psia 950
Reservoir temperature, of 110
Average porosity, fraction 38
Average permeability, md 750
original oil in place, MMbbl 920
Initial oil saturation, fraction 85
oil gravity, API 11.1
oil viscosity, cps (110 OF) 20 000
Solution GOR, scf/bbl 90

TABLE 2.- SOLVENT PROPERTIES AND LABORATORY RESULTS

Solvent name: Industrial Diesel

API gravity 30
Specific gravity 0.876
Calorific value, MJ/kg Gross 45.2
Net 42.2
critical temperature, c 92
Aromatics, fraction 40.3
Saturates, fraction 59.7
Kinematic viscosity, mm2/s @ 37. 8C 6

Distillation, fraction @ 70 c 0
@ 212 c 50
@ 366 c 90

LABORATORY RESULTS

Mix viscosity (cps) @ 100 c

rpm oil viscosity Solvent concentration

cps 5% 10%

12.0 280.0 112.0 112.0

6.0 265.0 113.0 113.0
3.0 264.0 110.0 110.0
1.5 260.0 104.0 104.0
0.6 260.0 100.0 100.0
0.3 200.0 100.0 100.0

PRECIPITATION TESTS

Amount precipitated
(wt. percent of the crude)

Sample Test 1 Test 2

oil + industrial diesel 0.60 0.89

oil + automotive diesel 3.00 4.03

87
 SPE 21ilQ

TABLE 3. - STEAM SOLVENT INJECTION. COMPARISON OF RESULTS BE~WEEN WELL LSJ-4057 AND ADJACENT
WELLS

CYCLE CUMULATIVE ANNUAL

STEAM SOLVENT LAPSING OIL AVERAGE OIL-STEAM DECLINE
VOLUME VOLUME TIME PRODUCTION RATE RATIO RATE*
WELL CYCLE (MSTB) (BBL) (MONTH) (MSTB) (BOPD) (BBL/BBL) (%)

LSJ-3636 II 28.1 30 71.8 90 2.55 80/22

co
co
LSJ-3641 II 24.6 30 47.3 58 1.90 68/25

LSJ-3650 II 30.4 30 87.1 110 2.87 70/18

AVERAGE 27.7 30 68.7 86 2.48 73/22

LSJ-4057 II 31.5 1 876 30 127.7 167 4.05 11/43

* Includes the two typical decline rates for 8 and 30 months, respectively.
 aPE 21;)'

LSJ-4057

FIGURE 2
STRUCTURAL MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF WELL LSJ-4057
AND NEIGHBORING WELLS.
FIGURE 1
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF WELL LSJ-4057

FIGURE 3
ISOPACH MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF WELL LSJ-4057
AND NEIGHBORING WELLS

89
 ....................
..........
SPE 2 l~ 5.','
..........
..........
.................... CONCENTRA nON
..... --- --
V"J
Q..
U --- --- --
~
....I-Vl -'- '- '- '- -- -- o %
......................
o
U
....
Vl
>
'- '- '- '- ................
--- .. -- .................
....
...J
o
-'- ......... -- .-..- ....... ................

20 %

10 I
80 100 120 140 160 180
TEMPERA TURE, OF

FIGURE 4
EFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND SOLVENT CONCENTRATION ON OIL VISCOSITY FOR
WELL LSJ-4057

41/2' x 2Ys' TUBING ---7'1~

<~
r~:
(0' -2365') J-55 /.

%-
/
//
/
0 /
If:' /
7" PRODUCTION CASING ---.. I: ~
(0'-2207') N-80 4

I;'
2Y2' SUCKER PUMP ---~ I:;.
~" I~::
;oJ I~;
'4'1 I';:
5W LINER -------t,lo-o~] I';
(2092'-2451') P-110 -, 4,

':~I I'J>
'~I 1'0:'-
~Ol 1
:~ .~
0" I~
,~ I 1'
,4~L_J:'
O"'o~ 0
-4 .~.
-4'
O.

TO: 2456'

FIGURE 5
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF WELL LSJ-4057
MECHANICAL COMPLETION
90
 350 LEGEM>
~\ - - - - G-2I3 PROJECT STATISTICAL PRODUCTION
I \ PERFORMANCE FOR CYCLIC STEAM INJECTION
I \
300 \
\
\
\
\
0 250 \
Q... \
0 \

W
CO
. \
\
\
\
I- 200 \
\
<! \
0::: \ \
\ \
Z \ \
0 \ \
....... ISO \
\
I- \ \
U
:::J
\
\
\
.....
0
0 100
\
.........
0::: """-----
Q...
..................
... ... ......
50
- - - PRIMARY -_.- - - 1~ CYCLE - - - - - - 2~ CYCLE (STEAM-SOLVENT) - - - - -.-E:~IlliIC
LIMIT

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, MONTHS

FIGURE 6
PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE FOR WELL LSJ-4057

350

300

0 250
Q...
0
CO
w
. 200
I-
<!
0:::
Z
0
t-1
150
I-
U
:::J
0
0 100
0:::
Q...

50
- - 1~ CYCLE - - - - - 2~ CYCLE (STEAM-SOLVENT) - - - - - - -.J;CQtlO.MjC
LIMIT

0
50 100 150 200 250 300

CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION, MSTB

FIGURA 7
NET OIL PRODUCTION RATE vs.CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION FOR WELL LSJ-4057

91
 SPE. 2 153 0
STEAM
TANK

SOLVENT
LSJ-4057

1 STEAM GENERATION PLANT

'SKID'
E STEAM

FIGURE 8
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF STEAM-SOLVENT INJECTION SYSTEM.

~-- 3 112" INJECTION STRING

(0'-2057') J-55

I"'>?V>OilI---- THERMAL PACKER

.............. 7' PRODUCTION CASING

<0'-2207') N-80

' 4 1 - - - 5 112' LINER

(2092'-2451') P-110

TO: 245ft

FIGURE 9
LSJ-4057 WELL COMPLETION FOR
STEAM-SOLVENT INJECTION

92
 '100

J ~ND
o LSJ-4057
+ NEIGHBORING WELLS
L.-
300
I
a
0..
0
II)

W
I- 250
<l:
0:::
Z
0
.....
l-
200
e.>
:::>
a
... 0
0:::
0.. 150

100

50

o, i , , , i , , , , , i , i , i , i , , , i , i , , , , i ,
1 2 :3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

TIME. MONTHS

FIGURE 10
HISTORY MATCH-MONTHLY AVERAGE PRODUCTION RATE.
WELL LSJ-4057 vs.NEIGHBORING WELLS
u~

!"J
..-
""
ViI
C
 seE 21530

150

140
LEGEND
1:30 J I D LSJ-4057
L NEIGHBORING WELLS

ro
120

110
1
I-
\I)
~
100
Z
-
0
I-
(.)
::>
90

80
0
0
a:::
a.. 70

~ -
...J
0
w
60

-
>
I-

...J
50

40
::>
~
::> 30
(.)

20

10

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 If> 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

TIME, MONTHS

FIGURE 11
HISTORY MATCH-MONTHLY CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION.
WELL LSJ-4057 vS.NEIGHBORING WELLS