Available online at http://www.ecopetrol.com.

co/wps/portal/es/ecopetrol-web/nuestra-
empresa/sala-de-prensa/publicaciones/

Ciencia, Tecnología y Futuro – CT&F

Journal of Oil, Gas and Alternative Energy Sources

COMBUSTION GASES FOR EOR: OPTIMIZING STEAM INJECTION

EFFICIENCY

GASES DE COMBUSTIÓN PARA RECOBRO MEJORADO: OPTIMIZANDO

LA INYECCIÓN DE VAPOR

GASES DE COMBUSTÃO PARA RECUPERAÇÃO MELHORADA DE

HIDROCARBONETOS: OTIMIZANDO A EFICIÊNCIA DA INJEÇÃO DE

VAPOR

Jean Heli Pérez1* Jaime José Martínez1 Samuel Muñoz Navarro1

1Universidad Industrial de Santander, Grupo de Investigación de Recobro Mejorado Bucaramanga, Colombia.
e-mail: Jean_heli08@hotmail.com*, Jaime.martinez1@correo.uis.edu.co, Samuel@uis.edu.co

(Received: Month.day,year; Accepted: Month.day,year)

ABSTRACT
Novel approaches on heavy and ultra-heavy hydrocarbons recovery are needed. Historically they have been
developed under thermal recovery methods; particularly, steam injection in either scheme (Cyclic,
Continuous, SAGD) is one of the thermal enhanced oil recovery techniques more used worldwide. However,
this technique has different limitations during its implementation, in which the depth of application and the
large volumes of injection stand out. This work aims to analyze the technical feasibility of using the
combustion gases from the steam generator such as CO2, N2, or Flue Gas (CO2+N2) to improve the results
given by the technique. It is relevant to highlight that flue gas product of steam generation is generally dumped
into the atmosphere, leaving an ecological footprint. In this study, capturing these gases from steam
generators in field and their impact when being used as a complement to steam injection processes were
investigated. The methodology implemented in the development of the present investigation has been
focused on a review of laboratory experiments, numerical reservoir simulations and pilots taken to field scale.
The developed study shows that the impact of these gases in the recovery factor is quite significant, and the
decrease on the vapor volumes to inject makes the projects profitable investments. Existent technology
allows to develop this field methodology, and the impact to geological reservoir conditions is not significative.
Also, the subsequent objective is to study an injection scheme design involving steam and gases recuperated
from the combustion current. In conclusion, the use of these combustion gases represents an opportunity to
optimize the steam injection increasing the recovery factor, reducing the emission of polluting gases into the
environment, and reducing steam volumes to inject.
Keywords: EOR; Flue Gas; Steam Injection; Capture Methods.

How to cite: Jean Heli Pérez Córdoba*, Jaime José Martínez Vertel, Samuel Fernando Muñoz Navarro.
2

Combustion gases for EOR: Optimizing Steam Injection. Ciencia, Tecnología y Futuro - CT&F

*To whom correspondence should be sent

RESUMEN
Se necesitan nuevos enfoques para la recuperación de hidrocarburos pesados y ultra pesados.
Históricamente, estos se han desarrollado bajo métodos de recuperación térmica; en particular, la inyección
de vapor en cualquiera de sus esquemas (cíclico, continuo, SAGD) es una de las técnicas mejoradas de
recuperación térmica de petróleo más utilizadas alrededor del mundo. Sin embargo, esta técnica tiene
diferentes limitaciones durante su implementación, destacándose la profundidad de aplicación y los grandes
volúmenes de inyección. El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar la viabilidad técnica del uso de los gases de
combustión del generador de vapor, como CO2, N2 o gas de combustión (CO2 + N2) para mejorar los
resultados obtenidos por la técnica. Es relevante destacar que el producto de los gases de combustión de
la generación de vapor generalmente se vierte a la atmósfera, dejando una huella ecológica. En este estudio,
se investigaron la captura de estos gases de los generadores de vapor en el campo y su impacto cuando se
utilizan como complemento de los procesos de inyección de vapor. La metodología implementada para el
desarrollo de la presente investigación se ha centrado en una revisión de experimentos de laboratorio,
simulaciones numéricas de yacimientos y pilotos llevados a escala de campo. El estudio desarrollado
muestra que el impacto de estos gases en el factor de recobro es bastante significativo, y la disminución en
los volúmenes de vapor para inyectar hace que los proyectos sean inversiones rentables. La tecnología
existente permite desarrollar esta metodología en diferentes campos y el impacto en las condiciones
geológicas del yacimiento no es significativo. Además, el objetivo subsecuente de esta investigación consiste
en estudiar el diseño de un esquema de inyección que involucre vapor y gases recuperados de la corriente
de combustión. En conclusión, el uso de estos gases de combustión representa una oportunidad para
optimizar la inyección de vapor aumentando el factor de recuperación, reduciendo la emisión de gases
contaminantes al medio ambiente y reduciendo los volúmenes de vapor a inyectar.
Palabras Clave: Recobro Mejorado; Gases de Combustión; Inyección de Vapor; Métodos
de Captura.

RESUMO
Novas abordagens na recuperação de hidrocarbonetos pesados e ultra pesados se estão tornando
necessárias. Historicamente, estes foram desenvolvidos sob métodos de recuperação térmica;
particularmente, a injeção de vapor nos esquemas Cíclico, Contínuo e SAGD é uma das técnicas de
recuperação melhorada de óleo mais utilizadas no mundo todo. Porém, esta técnica possui diferentes
limitações durante sua implementação, nas quais a profundidade de aplicação e os grandes volumes de
injeção se destacam. Este trabalho tem como objetivo analisar a viabilidade técnica de fazer uso dos gases
de combustão do gerador de vapor, como dióxido de carbono, nitrogênio ou Gases de Lareira, para melhorar
os resultados obtidos pela técnica. É relevante destacar que os gases de combustão, produto da geração
de vapor são geralmente jogados na atmosfera, deixando uma pegada ecológica. Neste estudo, a captação
dos gases de geradores de vapor em campo e seu impacto quando são utilizados como complemento aos
processos de injeção de vapor foram investigados. A metodologia implementada para o desenvolvimento
da investigação esteve focada numa revisão de experimentos de laboratório, simulações numéricas de
reservatórios e pilotos levados para escala de campo. O estudo desenvolvido mostra que o impacto desses
gases no fator de recuperação é bastante significativo e a diminuição nos volumes de vapor a injetar torna
os projetos rentáveis. A tecnologia existente permite desenvolver esta metodologia de campo e o impacto
nas condições geológicas do reservatório não é significativo. Além disso, o objetivo subsequente é estudar
um esquema de projeto de injeção envolvendo vapor e gases recuperados da corrente de combustão. Em
conclusão, o uso destes gases de combustão representa uma oportunidade para otimizar a injeção de vapor
aumentando o fator de recuperação, reduzindo a emissão de gases poluentes no meio ambiente e reduzindo
 3

os volumes de vapor a injetar.

Palavras Chave: Recuperação Melhorada; Gases de Combustão; Injeção de Vapor; Métodos de captura.

1. INTRODUCTION

Steam injection is the most common thermal recovery process worldwide, it has been developed as cyclic,
continuous or steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). This technique represents the opportunity to extract
the 30% of the OOIP that remains in the reservoir after primary and secondary recovery (Zerkalov, G. 2015),
especially in fields which contain heavy and ultra-heavy oil accumulations. This technique has been applied
since 1960 in many places around the world such as EEUU (Volek, C., Prior, J., 1972), Canada (Hernandez,
O., 1972), North Sea (Bath, G., Van der Burgh, J., Ypma, G., 1983), Colombia (Trigos, E., Jimenez, A.,
Osorio, A., Lozano, M., 2017), and Venezuela (Trigos, E., Jimenez, A., Osorio, A., Lozano, M., 2017) with
technical and economic success.

Steam injection is widely documented in the literature, cases with more than 70% of recovery factor at Kern
River-South Belridge in California (Chevron, 2010; Shell, 2012), and Charco Redondo in Texas (Farouq Ali,
1979) are reported. However, there have been found some limitations like depth of application, high steam
oil relation (SOR) through time, inefficient heated zones, pore pressure declination and economic viability
that represents an opportunity to improve this technique. The first approach that researchers did based on
those limitations focused on operational parameters like injection rate and steam quality (Hong, K., 1994), or
well completion (Satyagraha, M., Aimar, A., 1999); the principal improvement was the SOR decrease. Other
approaches were needed and co-injection of steam with solvents or foams (Mendez, Z., Alvarez, J., Escobar,
E., Colonomos, P., Campos, E., 1992) seemed to be a solution; nevertheless, the costs of the projects were
uneconomic in most of the cases.

Co-injection of steam with CO2, N2 or Flue Gas has been recently evaluated since the principal mechanisms
of CO2-N2 injection are the main problems for steam injection (Zhong, L., 2013) and flue gas is generated on
the steam generator (Fanaritis, J., Warre., Kimmel., 1965). This paper aims to evaluate past and recent
experiments, simulations and pilots of steam- CO2, N2 or Flue Gas co-injection. The relationship between
fluid used, recovery factor and type of reservoir, as well as identifying the mechanisms acting on the reservoir,
especially the ones which optimize the steam injection process. To achieve the objectives proposed, this
paper was divided in four main sections:

 Summary of steam injection technique, screening criteria and flue gas product of the operation. The main
goal of this section is to contextualize the steam injection process in the reservoir, identifying the
limitations inherent to it.
 Capture methods for CO2 or N2 in flue gas streams. This section would provide an alternative to obtain
these gases directly from the operation.
 Review of CO2-Steam and N2-Steam co-injection laboratory experiments, simulations and field trials
reporting technical feasibility.
 Flue-Gas co injection reporting technical successful at laboratory, field and simulation scale.

2. THEORICAL FRAMEWORK

Summary of Historical Review on Steam Injection

Farouq (1979) documented some successful and unsuccessful historic steam injection projects (Appendix
A). This review included 13 field cases around the world including operational parameters, reservoirs
characteristics, well distribution, performance of the technique; it is relevant to hightlight that all of them were
developed on sandstones. Farouq´s paper summarizes that steam injection recovery factor is about 60-70%
at shallow depths < 1,000ft, permeabilities around 2,000 mD and porosity above 25%; however, for deep
4

reservoirs with less rock quality the recovery factor may be in the range of 8-35%. Also, SOR is for every
case a critical value > 5, except for the medium oil in Duri field where SOR is 0.16; this parameter impacts
severely on the economics of a project, as higher is the SOR, the more fuel is going to be needed to put an
oil barrel in the surface.
Butler (1990) developed a new scheme for steam injection called steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD),
this new approach consisted in two parallel horizontal wells where the injector is placed above the producer.
With this arrange the purpose was to drain the reservoir efficiently by taking advantage of the gravity effect;
A steam chamber is formed near the top which heats the reservoir fluids and condensates would be produced
by the producer well located below the injector well. Even so, the screening of these techniques shown in
table 1 could be improved by co-injection gases as CO2, N2 or flue gas.
Table 1. Screening of steam injection
Author Depth (ft) °API T (°F) Thickness Permeability Porosity Viscosity
(ft) (mD) (%) (cP)
Farouq, Ali., <3,000 12-25 NC >30 1,000 >30 <1,000
1974
Dickson, 400-4500 8-20 NC 15-150 >250 NC NC
2010
Hama, M.Q., <1,500 13-14 100 NC 2,000-2,500 >32 2,100 <
2014 24,700
Llaguno, P., --- 8-20 92 40-150 200-1,000 10-40 570-
2002. SAGD 25,000
NC= Non-critical
Steam injection mechanisms has been widely documented (Beltrán, J., 2005; Morales, R., Quintero, E.,
España, N., Ascanio, K., 2017; Ross, T. S., Rahnema, H., Nwachukwu, C., Alebiosu, O., & Shabani, B.,
2018). The principal mechanisms acting in the reservoir are: viscosity reduction, corresponding to
temperature increase; changes in relative permeability, as the rock becomes stronger water wet by the
temperature change; steam vaporization, as the light hydrocarbons components separates from the heavy
components when it gets in contact with the high temperature steam; and skin factor reduction when the
steam passes through the wellbore.
Bagheripur, M., Ayatollahi, S., & Shabaninejad (2012) studied the performances of recovery mechanisms in
heavy and light oil reservoirs. Authors developed representative models of Cold Lake Canada heavy oil and
Iranian fractured light oil to understand the effects of steam injection for each type of fluid. The results in
these studies showed that:
o Light oil reservoirs respond faster to steam injection, parameters such as injection rates and SOR must
be under control.
o Steam quality has no significant effect on light oil, therefore, this parameter must be as low as possible
for economic reasons.
o The best performance for injection wells was obtained with top layers completed.
o Heavy oil reservoirs are dominated by viscosity reduction, while light oil reservoirs are equally governed
by steam distillation, thermal oil expansion and viscosity reduction.
Brief discussion on Steam Injection Review
After an analysis of the previous review, results of steam injection as an EOR technology are well established,
successful cases have been documented in many fields around the world. Since considerable volumes of
heavy oil remain in reservoirs and depth of application is the main limitation for steam injection as it is shown
in figure 1, CO2 and N2 are the most promising fluids for co-injection given that they are successful in great
depths.
 5

Figure 1. Range of enhanced oil recovery methods. Shell (2012)

Xiaohu, D., Huiqing, L. & Keliu, W., (2018) established actual trends on EOR processes to recover those
remaining volumes, the principal one consists on hybrid processes with steam; use of solvents, foams, N 2,
CO2, flue gas on conventional cyclic-continuous steam injection or even SAGD is now the focus to improve
the results obtained on previous steam projects. Furthermore, offshore fields like Emeraude field in Congo,
Bachaquero field in Maracaibo, Venezuela and Bohai Bay in China are implementing steam based projects.
Review of Capture Methods
Capture of combustion gases started at power coal plants looking for carbon capture and storage (CCS)
(Martinez, R., Campos, R., Pérez, L., Suaréz, I., y Zapatero, M., 2008), in order to mitigate the environmental
impact due to high volumes of CO2 generated during the operation. To achieve this goal, three different
capture schemes could be used for the process: pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-combustion
(Morales, H., Torres, C. 2008; Aguinaco, V., 2008; Cardona, C., Valencia, M., 2013). The difference between
each other is the time during the process where the CO2 is captured; except for oxy combustion that enrich
the combustion with oxygen and produce CO2 in concentrations over 92%. In fact, Garcia, G., Nikoo, M.,
Carbo, M., & Bolea, I. (2012) studied the possibility of using that technology for oil operations. Capture
schemes also count with special arrangements to separate the gases on combustion streams (Xiaochun, X.
et al, 2002; Yu, C., Huang, C., & Tan, C., 2012), those are:
 Physical adsorption (figure 2.a): Combustion stream gets in contact with a surface made of activated
carbon or zeolite, materials that naturally trap CO2 on their structure. After the trapping occurs,
temperature and pressure starts to swing to release the CO2. Other materials such as molecular sieves
or silica membranes are being studied for application.
 Chemical absorption (figure 2.b): Aqueous solution such as monoethanolamine, diethanolamine or
triethanolamine are used to absorb CO2 present on the combustion stream, then temperature is raised
in order to release CO2 and regenerate the solvent used.
 Membrane separation (figure 2.c): A semi permeable mesh is used as a filter for CO 2 present in the
current. This method might not be very efficient, thus it is necessary to recirculate the gases to achieve
a good separation.
 Cryogenic separation (figure 2.d): A cold box is used to get the stream to liquid phase and separate the
gases present in it. Due to higher energy demands, this technology is not commercial.
6

Figure 2: CO2 separation methods.

Separation technology allows to use combustion gases to improve steam injection, since flue gas product of
steam generation consists of 85-88% N2 and 15-12% CO2 (Shokoya, O., Mehta, S., Moore, R., Maini, B.,
2005), co-injection of steam with N2, CO2 or flue gas are factible. Xin, K., (2017) reported an improvement
after using flue gas-steam during a field trial; initial SOR was 0.21 and got to 0.16, also reduced the steam
consumption by 3.5x104 m3.
Steam - N2, CO2 Co-Injection.
Interest in heavy oil production have been raising trough time, conventional techniques as steam injection
needs novel approaches to improve the actual recovery factor, be efficient in deepest reservoirs, and reduce
energy losses. Use of gases like N2 and CO2 might be the solution for most of the performance problems;
several experiments, simulations and field pilots were developed in order to optimize the steam injection
mechanisms.
Terry, S., & John, I. (1987) aimed to understand the mechanisms behind cyclic steam-CO2 co-injection based
on reservoir simulation validated by experiments in cores. Process consisted in 3 phases: CO2 pre-soak
followed by steam injection; steam-CO2 co-injection and steam, CO2 and solvent together. Authors found
that pre-soak only achieve greater benefits during the first drawdown, every phase has higher values of oil
recovery than steam alone and the primarily mechanism is viscosity reduction by CO 2 dissolved in oil.
In 1991 Hornbrook, M., Dehgnani, K., Qadeer, S., & Ostermann, R. evaluated the effects of adding CO 2 to
steam to recover West Sak Crude Oil (16-21°API), this decision was made considering CO2 was available
near to the field at Bay field. The study was composed by two parts, experiments and simulation; the aim
was to determine which mechanisms were acting during the technique. Authors concluded that behind
viscosity reduction there are more mechanisms, such as steam distillation and oil swelling; they also
determined that CO2/steam ratio is fundamental for maximizing the recovery.
Nasr, T., & Pierce, G. (1993) studied recovery process of steam-CO2 co-injection for bottom water oil
reservoir through laboratory experiments of CO2-steam continuous injection, CO2 pre-soak to steam injection,
hot water injection and CO2 alternating steam. After the laboratory process, results showed that water zone
is beneficial for initial injectivity, co-injection may improve oil recovery rates since accelerated heat
communication between producer and injector, also co-injection has better results than alternating, hot water
injection would delay oil production and CO2 pre-soak could block steam injection.
Experimental studies on fractured cores were developed to analyze steam and CO2 behaviour (Liu, S.,
Sharma, M., Harris, H. 1995), authors found out:
 Steam-CO2 co-injection increases steam alone recovery factor by 18% on fractured cores and 20% on
non-fractured cores.
 Steam/CO2 ratio dominates the oil recovery process. For non-fractured cores, there is an optimum ratio
for the lowest residual oil saturation.
 For every 50°F increase in temperature, about 3-5% additional oil will be recovered.
 7

 Injection rates controls production rates, when using CO2 production rate might be reduced in
comparison with steam alone for fractured cores.
West Kozluca heavy oil (12.4 ° API) was evaluated for steam+CO2-CH4 injection. Initial laboratory results
showed a considerable improve in recovery factor: 21.7% for steam alone, 36.2% for steam+ CH4 and 49.9%
for steam+CO2 (Bagci, A., 2004). Even though the findings where promising, the field was developed under
water alternating gas with an incremental recovery factor of 2-3% (Targac, G., et al. 2005). In this particular
case, economic factor played a big role even when there was evidence of a big success by the use of steam
over water.
Liahoe, Karamay and Shengli oilfields are extra heavy oil reservoirs with top water layers, based on this
condition traditional steam injection is not going to work because water would breakup into the well too early.
Gao, Y., Liu, S., Dehuang, S., Guo, E. (2008) proposed SAGD process assisted by N2. Theoretically the N2
would stay at the top of the formation inhibiting the heat of the water layer, therefore prolonging the life of the
process. To prove the novel solution, authors decided to run different simulations; they discovered that the
heat loss to the cap rock of water was greatly reduced by the N2, also mechanisms as viscosity reduction,
mobility of heavy oil and SOR were improved by adding N2 to the process.
In 2008 Bagci, A., Olusha, S., & Mackay, E. evaluated the performance of a SAGD Wind-Down with CO2
injection, the main goal was to be environmental friendly since operations like this leaves a quite big
ecological footprint. For this purpose a numerical simulation using STARS was carried out: Wind-Down with
CO2 was evaluated after 4, 6 and 8 years of SAGD based on a 12 years production operation, also reservoir
characteristics put into the model represented a shallow reservoir with good quality rock. Results showed
that operational parameters as temperature injection and injection rate are fundamental for a good SAGD
performance, CO2 wind-down might deliver bigger recovery factor depending on depletion, since oil recovery
increases inversely with pore pressure. Another relevant finding is that CO2 storage capacity after wind-down
process increases with the oil left in place, this should be considered for future wind-down projects.
Shengli oilfield is a super heavy oil with commonly 2x106 cP that makes steam stimulation inefficient. Li Hui,
Sun & Shi Junping 2010 proposed CO2+Dissolver+Steam, based on laboratory experiments and correlation
fields. Theoretically the dissolver would decrease the oil viscosity at wellbore and CO2 was going to enhance
the steam injection enlarging the effective drainage radius, therefore producing commercial oil rates. The
development was successful as expected by the other fields; mechanisms mentioned before had typical
behaviour on reservoir.
Novel approach in fractured reservoirs consists in CO2 used as a solvent during a steam over solvent injection
(Naderi, K., & Babadagli, T. 2011). Laboratory experiments were carried out to see the effect of CO2 at porous
media level. Results showed that Carbone dioxide could take the place of hydrocarbon solvent satisfying the
mutual goals for oil production and greenhouse gas sequestration, it was also evident that wettability
conditions and temperature would rule the performance.
Egboka, C. (2011) analyzed steam injection with addition of CO2, C3H8, C4H10. Author selected Celtic
reservoir in Canada for numerous reservoir simulation, analysing the behaviour of each solvent as a unique
agent or mixed in every possible manner. Results showed that for every case, oil recovery decreased as
volume fraction of the component increased; also, the best performance in thermal efficiency is given by CO2
even when the lowest recovery factor is achieved.
Kazeem, A., & Tendo, F. (2015) started to evaluate the viability of using flue gas partially by steam alternating
CO2 (SAC) or co-injection if enough volumes are available. Simulation models were developed to determine
the viability of this approach. Authors determined that compared to steam only, it would be a deceleration of
oil recovery. Nevertheless, the saving per unit of oil produced in SOR, CO2 emissions and produced water
managements are highly representative. The research also considered a scheme for steam-flue gas co-
injection as it is shown in figure 3.
8

Figure 3: Basic schematic for the Alternating Steam Flue gas process.

Senlac field is a high-quality reservoir (33-40 % porosity; 1,000-10,000 mD), heavy oil (12-13°API) located
in Canada. A SAGD project started in 1996 with an initial recovery factor of 5.5%. In 1997 Raj K., Sam S., &
Mingzhe Dong studied co-injection of CO2, produced gas and flue gas at laboratory scale; results showed
that produced gas (15%mol CO2 in CH4) is more effective than flue gas (15%mol CO2 in N2), even so, if
there is CO2 available it has the best performance. Based on these results in 2002 the produced gas was
injected into the field, SOR decreased from 2.5 to 1.5, production rate increased and final recovery factor
was 51.6%. (Eric, D., 2017)
In 2017 Yi-Bo, L., et al carried out a novel solution for producing a highly acidic heavy oil reservoir. The
principal problem on those reservoirs is the strong W/O emulsion that steam forms when get in contact with
oil; since high pressure CO2 has a demulsification function different experiments were developed: huff and
puff, steam, steam-CO2 co-injection and steam alternating CO2. Results showed that it is possible to produce
efficiently a highly acid medium using CO2. They also found that alternating injection had the best results in
terms of recovery factor.
Since heavy oil reservoirs generally are heterogeneous, variations in porosity and permeability represent
great problems for steam injection affecting their sweep profiles. Based on those conditions Anzhu, A., Mu,
L., Bing, B., & Xinbo, L. (2017) started to evaluate superheated steam flooding using N2 assisted by a high
temperature resistant gel. Simulations based on Kumsai oilfield conditions were developed to check the
feasibility of the technique. Results showed that N2 decreased thermal losses by 15.5%, the injection profile
changed by 36.3%, and vertical production increased by 65.8%; initial results are promising, even so it is
necessary to validate the effects of each component to understand possible behaviours under different
conditions.
Renyuan Sun, et al (2018) proposed steam stimulation with N2 and a viscosity depressant for shallow thin
super heavy oil reservoirs such as CF oilfield in China. Author developed an experimental arrangement that
allowed to simulate technique conditions; results showed that viscosity depressant could improve the oil
recovery rate to 58.61%, N2 inhibited heat loss of injected steam and synergistic effects could improve the
recovery factor to 76.48%. Also, injection parameters could be optimized rationally according to economic
factors.
Recently Erpeng, O. et al (2018) started to study the feasibility of inject super critical CO2 with steam for deep
extra heavy oil reservoirs. PVT tests and reservoir simulations were developed in order to evidence what
could happen in the reservoir when those fluids arrived to the formation. Results reported that heat losses
along the injection tubing decreased by 40%, recovery factor remained close to SAGD based line and SOR
is relatively low (0.8 - 1.2). This technology requires further investigation since field conditions for the injection
fluids are complex.
Steam – Flue Gas Co-injection
Economic conditions rules oil and gas industry, since many oilfields worldwide may not have CO2 or N2
available in field or nearly especially those in offshore, the use of flue gas has been studied as a solution for
steam hybrid injection projects. The focus of the investigations was the feasibility of using those combustion
gases in contrast with pure CO2 or N2 as a co-injection fluid for cyclic, continuous and SAGD steam injection.
Flue gas evaluation was studied by Nasr, T., Prowse, D., & Frauenfel, T. (1987) for a bitumen sand. Using a
physical simulator cyclic and continuous schemes were simulated to see the effects of injection fluids. Results
 9

showed for both cases that flue gas had better performance than only steam, CO2 with or without N2 leaded
to an increase in bitumen recovery while N2 with steam produced the same as only steam.
Saskatchewan heavy oil formations are thin and shaly, so conventional thermal recovery methods are not
suitable for them. A novel approach using steam + flue gas mixture of O2 and CO2 was evaluated by Dong,
M., Huang, S. (2002). Using PVT studies with two-dimensional physical model tests the results were: flue
gas is more effective for live oil than for dead oil, O2 present in the flue gas had a similar behaviour with N2,
free gas drive is one of the most important mechanisms for recovery and the most efficient injection strategy
is vertically downward.
In 2002 Chi-Tak, L., & Stroich, A., summarized the results of a mature SAGD wind down pilot strategy with
non-condensable gases and time after flue gas. Results showed that oil recovery and SOR values were
better than only SAGD; even so, heat transfer to colder zones and depletion levels were not as expected by
numerical simulation. Also, when the use of flue gas started the performance of the well remained relatively
constant.
Renjing, L., et al (2011) evaluated the feasibility of steam-flue gas injection in Yanchang oilfield, a low
permeability reservoir; experiments and simulations were made to understand which mechanisms affect the
fluids flow and validate the technology. Authors determined that flue gas – steam dramatically improved
flooding efficiency, N2 helps pressure maintenance and CO2 enhanced oil swelling and steam distillation.
Also, operational parameters for that specific area were optimized: temperature of mixture gas was 150-
180°C and injection rates of 6,000-8000 m3/d.
In China Bohay Bay heavy oilfield Liu, D., et al (2012) evaluated a new highly efficient technology to produce
the field, it consists on gas generator that could produce in the same stream steam and flue gas. Figure 4
shows the pilot equipment for a Multi thermal fluid injection (steam + flue gas). Two pilots in different wells
were carried out and incremental production was at least three times greater than previous case; authors
concluded that flue gas improved recovery efficiency; favourable geological conditions for the technique are
high dip angle, high reservoir permeability, and high rock compressibility.
Figure 4: Schematic multi thermal fluid injection. Liu, D., et al (2012)

Improvement of flue gas – steam co injection, was studied by Qihong, F. et al (2012). Since breakthrough is
a big problem for gas-based injections, displacement efficiency was the critical factor to improve using gel.
Numerical simulations were carried out to see the upgrade gel could give to the process; results determined
that gel injection could sharply enhance producing rate by increasing the displacement efficient.
In 2013 Monte-Mor, L., Laboissére, P., & Trevisan, O. Studied in laboratory the effect of steam - flue gas co-
injection since downhole steam generators produced both fluids on the reservoir. Experiments showed that
flue gas may reduce the amount of steam needed per barrel by 10%, pressure behind the front is more
stable, oil production is accelerated compared to steam only and recovery factor is up to 79%.
A novel low-cost completion for steam-flue gas co-injection was developed by Teodoriu, C., Marquez, A.,
Ichim, C. (2016). Based on computational fluid dynamics authors simulated the steam flows through tubing
and combustion gases flow by annular, the best results were given by a thermal packer that allow thermal
expansion and a labyrinth packer to control the annular flue gas flow. Figure 5 shows the schematic design
of the novel completion developed.
10

Figure 5: Schematic design for steam-flue gas injection. Teodoriu, C., et al (2016)

In China offshore Bohai Bay reservoir, Shunqiang, Z., Yongta, S., Yubao, S., Yongbin, W., & Xueqi, L. (2015)
developed different simulations to apply a field SAGD assisted by flue gas. The base case of recovery factor
for only steam injection was less than 18%, the improvement by using flue gas was evaluated for different
schemes showing a benefit for every case:
o Flue gas / Cyclic steam stimulation: 14 years of production; 17.5-20.3% of recovery factor and SOR of
0.65-1.13.
o Flue gas / Cyclic steam stimulation + steam flooding: 35 years of production; 31.1-35.7% of recovery
factor and SOR of 0.12-0.2.
o Flue gas / SAGD: 11 years of production; 42.87-45.89% of recovery factor and SOR of 0.15-0.2.
o Flue gas / Steam stimulation + SAGD: 12 years of production; 62.45-65.68% of recovery factor and SOR
of 0.21-07.
A Turkish oilfield has been using CO2 from flue gas as an enhanced oil recovery method with success, even
so the application of the pure flue gas was evaluated by Serdar, B., & Serhat, A. (2017) since that could
enhance the economics of the project and the recovery factor. Simulations were made to see the different
scenarios and compare them. Results showed that for CO2 storage and flue gas injection there is not
significant differences in recovery factor and flue gas injection leads to an incremental oil rate. The best case
was to pressurize the reservoir with flue gas and then inject pure CO2 to optimize the operation.
Recovery mechanisms by steam - flue gas co-injection had been studied extensively through PVT tests,
laboratory experiments and reservoir simulations (Zhong, L., et al 2013; Songyan, L., Zhaimin, Li., Xiaona,
L. 2016; Zhuangzhuang, W., et al. 2017). Authors determined that the principal mechanisms were: viscosity
reduction, pressure maintenance, and thermal displacement; even so, further analysis showed different
factors that contribute to those mechanisms:
 Solubility of flue gas in oil generates a foamy oil, this phenomenon may produce an expansion of the
original heavy oil volume reducing its flow resistance and oil viscosity.
 Synergistic effects of the fluids allows the N2 to decrease heat losses and support pore pressure, while
steam + CO2 improved the displacement efficiency.
 Injection rates are a critical value since it controls the gas channelling, this value must be optimized
through numerical simulation.
3. CONCLUSIONS

 Steam injection has been successfully implemented throughout the world, nevertheless its
implementation is principally limited to depth of application, formation thickness, permeability and
 11

onshore fields; those limitation can be overcome by the use of flue gas as has been proved.
 EOR mechanisms of CO2 and N2 have been proved several times, viscosity reduction, gas cap
drive, enlargement of heated zones, pressure maintenance and oil swelling contribute to oil
recovery rate and final recovery factor. These non-condensable gases may improve steam
injection as co-injection fluids, however costs must be evaluated in order to use them.
 Flue gas co-injection is an efficient technique to optimize steam injection in those reservoirs with
unsatisfactory performance. Through simulations, experiments and pilots suitability for deeper
and complex heavy oil reservoirs was stablished, the principal mechanisms improvements were
displacement efficiency, steam oil relation, pressure maintenance and oil swelling.
 Further field trials must be made, analysis of additives or new technologies applied with flue gas-
steam projects in order to improve the results obtained until now.

REFERENCES
1. Aguinaco, V. (2008). Captura y almacenamiento de dióxido de carbono. Academia de Ingeniería,
México.
2. Ali, S. M. F., & Meldau, R. F. (1979, October 1). Current Steamflood Technology. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/7183-PA
3. Ali, S. M. F., & Thomas, S. (1995, January 1). Steam And CO2 Combination Flooding of Fractured
Cores: Experimental Studies. Petroleum Society of Canada. doi:10.2118/95-80
4. Anzhu, A. X., Longxin, M., bing, B., fachao, S., & Xingbo, L. (2017, November 13). Development and
Application of a Modified Superheated Steam Flooding Assisted by N2 Foam and High-Temperature
Resistant Gel. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/188180-MS
5. Bagci, A. S., & Gumrah, F. (2004, January 1). Effects of CO2 and CH4 Addition to Steam on
Recovery of West Kozluca Heavy Oil. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/86953-MS
6. Bagci, A. S., Sotuminu, O. G., & Mackay, E. J. (2008, January 1). Performance Analysis of SAGD
Wind-Down Process With CO2 Injection. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/113234-MS
7. Bagheripour Haghighi, M., Ayatollahi, S., & Shabaninejad, M. (2012, January 1). Comparing the
Performance and Recovery Mechanisms for Steam Flooding in Heavy and Light Oil Reservoirs.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/144797-MS
8. Bath, G. H., van der Burgh, J., & Ypma, G. J. (1983, January 1). RTD 2(2) Enhanced Oil Recovery
in the North Sea. World Petroleum Congress.
9. Beltran, J. (2005). Análisis e interpretación de yacimiento sometidos a inyección continua de vapor
mediante analogías (Tesis de pregrado). Universidad Industrial de Santander. Bucaramanga,
Colombia.
10. Castro, L. (2013). Inyección de CO2 como método de recuperación mejorada (Tesis de pregrado).
Universidad Nacional autónoma de México. México.
11. Delamaide, E. (2017, March 6). Senlac, The Forgotten SAGD Project. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/183721-MS
12. Dong, M., & Huang, S. (2002, September 1). Flue Gas Injection for Heavy Oil Recovery. Petroleum
Society of Canada. doi:10.2118/02-09-04
13. Dong, X., Liu, H., Wu, K., & Chen, Z. (2018, April 14). EOR Potential in the Post Steam Injection Era:
Current and Future Trends. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/190195-MS
14. Egboka, C. I., & Yang, D. T. (2011, January 1). Performance of a SAGD Process with Addition of
CO2, C3H8, and C4H10 in a Heavy Oil Reservoir. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/150170-MS
15. Enhanced Oil Recovery. (2012) Shell, p.26.
16. Erpeng, G., Yongrong, G., Youwei, J., Yunjun, Z., Zhigang, C., & Yao, W. (2018, March 26). Super
Critical CO2 and Steam Co-Injection Process for Deep Extra-Heavy Oil Reservoir. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/190412-MS
12

17. Fanaritis, J. P., Warren, P., & Kimmel, J. D. (1965, April 1). Review of Once-Through Steam
Generators. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/1029-PA
18. Feng, Q., Guo, L., Zhang, X., Gao, S., Shi, H., & Wu, S. (2012, January 1). Study of Thermal
Recovery Method of Steam and Flue Gas Combined With Gel Injection. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/157928-MS
19. Gao, Y., & Liu, S. (2008, January 1). Improving Oil Recovery by Adding N2 in SAGD Process for
Super-heavy Crude Reservoir with Top-Water. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/114590-MS
20. Garcia, G., Nikoo, M., Carbo, M., y Bolea, I. (2012). Technology Options and Integration Concepts
for Implementing CO2 Capture in Oils-Sands Operations. Journal of Canandian Petroleaum
Technology.
21. Hama, M. Q., Wei, M., Saleh, L. D., & Bai, B. (2014, June 10). Updated Screening Criteria for Steam
Flooding Based on Oil Field Projects Data. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/170031-MS
22. Hernandez, O. E., & Ali, S. M. F. (1972, January 1). Oil Recovery from Athabasca Tar Sand By
Miscible-Thermal Methods. Petroleum Society of Canada. doi:10.2118/7249
23. Hong, K. C. (1994, November 1). Effects of Steam Quality and Injection Rate on Steamflood
Performance. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/25788-PA
24. Hornbrook, M. W., Dehghani, K., Qadeer, S., Ostermann, R. D., & Ogbe, D. O. (1991, August 1).
Effects of CO2 Addition to Steam on Recovery of West Sak Crude Oil. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/18753-PA
25. Huang, S. S. (1997, January 1). Comparative Effectiveness of CO2, Produced Gas, and Flue Gas
for Enhanced Heavy Oil Recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/37558-MS
26. Lawal, K. A., & Tendo, F. (2015, August 4). Steam-alternating-CO2 for heavy-oil recovery. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/178356-MS
27. Li, H., Sun, J., & Shi, J. (2010, January 1). Research and Application on CO2 and Dissolver Assisted
Horizontal Well Steam-injection to Develop Super Heavy Oil. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/131061-MS
28. Li, Y.-B., Gao, H., Pu, W.-F., Yang, L., Dong, H., Zhang, X., Li, Q. (2017, November 13). A Novel
Displacement Mechanism of CO2-Assisted Steam Flooding for Highly Acidic Heavy Oil Reservoir:
An Experimental Study. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/188858-MS
29. Liu, D., Zhao, C., Su, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, F., & Huang, Y. (2012, April 30). New Research and
Application of High Efficient Development Technology for Offshore Heavy Oil in China. Offshore
Technology Conference. doi:10.4043/23015-MS
30. Liu, R., Zhang, J., Meng, L., Liu, F., & Zuo, C. (2011, January 1). Feasibility Study of Steam/Flue
Gas Mixture Injection in Low Permeability Reservoir. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/142343-MS
31. Llaguno, P. E., Moreno, F., Garcia, R., Mendez, Z., & Escobar, E. (2002, January 1). A Reservoir
Screening Methodology for SAGD Applications. Petroleum Society of Canada. doi:10.2118/2002-
124
32. Martinez, R., Campos, R., Pérez, L., Suaréz, I., y Zapatero, M. Análogos industriales del
almacenamiento de CO2. Ciemat, 11,2008
33. McDonald, J. (2010). Energy for the 21st Century. NEXT, p.24.
34. Mendez, Z., Alvarez, J. M., Escobar, E., Colonomos, P., & Campos, E. (1992, January 1). Cyclic
Steam Injection With Additives: Laboratory and Field Test Results of Steam/Foam and
Steam/Solvent Processes. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/24632-MS
35. Morales, H., y Torres, C. (2008). Tecnologías de captura y secuestro de CO2. Pontifica Universidad
Católica de Chile, Chile.
 13

36. Morales, R., Quintero, E., España, N., Ascanio, K., Case of Study: Results of the Cyclic Steam
Stimulation Project in Zuata Principal Field, Orinoco Oil Belt, Venezuela, XVII Congreso Colombiano
de Petróleo y Gas, 2017.
37. Naderi, K., & Babadagli, T. (2011, January 1). Use of CO2 as Solvent during Steam-Over-Solvent
Injection in Fractured Reservoirs (SOS-FR) Method for Heavy Oil Recovery. International Petroleum
Technology Conference. doi:10.2523/IPTC-14918-MS
38. Nasr, T. N., & Pierce, G. E. (1993, January 1). Steam-CO Recovery Processes For Bottom Water
Oil Reservoirs. Petroleum Society of Canada. doi:10.2118/SS-93-36
39. Nasr, T. N., Prowse, D. R., & Frauenfeld, T. (1987, May 1). The Use Of Flue Gas With Steam In
Bitumen Recovery From Oil Sands. Petroleum Society of Canada. doi:10.2118/87-03-06
40. Papavinasam, S., Zanganesh, K., Li, J., Emadi, D., Doiron, A., Salvador, C., … Gravel, J.-P.
(2012, January 1). Materials Issues In CO2 Capture, Transport, And Storage Infrastructure.
NACE International.
41. Ross, T. S., Rahnema, H., Nwachukwu, C., Alebiosu, O., & Shabani, B. (2018, April 14). Steam
Injection in Tight Oil Reservoir. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/190289-MS
42. Saskoil, S. S., & Butler, R. M. (1990, March 1). The Production Of Conventional Heavy Oil Reservoirs
With Bottom Water Using Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage. Petroleum Society of Canada.
doi:10.2118/90-02-03
43. Satyagraha, M. T., & Aimar, A. (1999, January 1). Frac and Pack Completion Strategy in Duri Steam
Flood (DSF) Field. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/54267-MS
44. Shokoya, O. S., Mehta, S. A., Moore, R. G., & Maini, B. (2005, January 1). Effect of Oil and Flue-
Gas Compositions on Oil Recovery in the Flue-Gas/Light-Oil Injection Process. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/97262-MS
45. Songyan, L., Zhaomin, L., & Xiaona, S. Effect of flue gas and n-hexane on heavy oil properties in
steam flooding process. Fuel Volume 187, 1 January 2017, Pages 84-93
46. Sun, R., Sun, Y., Fan, K., Yang, S., Qiao, M., Wang, X., & Yang, Y. (2018, June 22). Experiment
Studies on Horizontal Well - N2 - Viscosity Depressant - Steam Stimulation for Shallow Thin Super-
heavy Oil Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/191252-MS
47. Targac, G. W., Redman, R. S., Davis, E. R., Rennie, S. B., McKeever, S. O., & Chambers, B. C.
(2005, January 1). Unlocking the Value in West Sak Heavy Oil. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/97856-MS
48. Teodoriu, C., Marquez, A., & Ichim, A. C. (2016, October 19). A Low-Cost Completion Technique for
Simultaneous Steam and CO2 Injection in Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/181194-MS
49. Trevisan, O. V., Laboissiere, P., & Monte-Mor, L. S. (2013, June 11). Laboratory Study on Steam
and Flue Gas Co-injection for Heavy Oil Recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/165523-MS
50. Trigos, E., Jimenez, A., Osorio, A., Lozano, M. Key Strategies to Improve Cyclic Stimulation Process
in a Colombian Heavy Oil Field, XVII Congreso Colombiano de Petróleo y Gas, 2017.
51. Volek, C. W., & Pryor, J. A. (1972, August 1). Steam Distillation Drive-Brea Field, California. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/3441-PA
52. Wang, Z., Li, Z., Lu, T., Yuan, Q., Yang, J., Wang, H., & Wang, S. (2017, August 24). Research on
Enhancing Heavy Oil Recovery Mechanism of Flue Gas Assisted Steam Flooding. Carbon
Management Technology Conference. doi:10.7122/486093-MS
53. Xin K. Study and Field Experiment of Flue gas assisted SAGD. Sino-Global Energy. 2017, 22(7):52-
76.
54. Xu, X & Andresen, J.M. & Song, Chunshan & Miller, B.G. & Scaroni, A.W.. (2002). Preparation of
novel CO2 "molecular basket" of polymer modified MCM-41. ACS Division of Fuel Chemistry,
 14

Preprints. 47. 67-68.

55. Yee, C.-T., & Stroich, A. (2002, January 1). Flue Gas Injection into a Mature SAGD Steam Chamber
at the Dover Project (formerly UTF). Petroleum Society of Canada. doi:10.2118/2002-301
56. Yu, Cheng-Hsiu & Huang, Chih-Hung & Tan, Chung-Sung. (2012). A Review of CO 2 Capture by
Absorption and Adsorption. Aerosol and Air Quality Research. 12. 10.4209/aaqr.2012.05.0132.
57. Zerkalov, G. (2015). Steam Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery. En R.B Laughlin, course
Introduction to the Physics of Energy, Stanford University.
58. Zhao, S., Sun, Y., Sun, Y., Wu, Y., & Liu, X. (2015, June 9). Case Study of Flue Gas Assisted SAGD
in Offshore Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/174517-MS
59. Zhong, L., Dong, Z., Hou, J., Li, Y., Sun, Y., Zhao, L., … Qin, F. (2013, July 2). Investigation on
Principles of Enhanced Offshore Heavy Oil Recovery by Coinjection of Steam with Flue Gas. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/165231-MS
60. Zhong, L., Dong, Z., Hou, J., Li, Y., Sun, Y., Zhao, L., Qin, F. (2013, July 2). Investigation on
Principles of Enhanced Offshore Heavy Oil Recovery by Coinjection of Steam with Flue Gas. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/165231-MS.

AUTHORS
Jean Heli Pérez Córdoba
Affiliation: Universidad Industrial de Santander; Grupo de Recobro Mejorado, Bucaramanga, Colombia.
e-mail: Jean_heli08@hotmail.com

Jaime José Martínez Vertel

Affiliation: Universidad Industrial de Santander; Grupo de Recobro Mejorado, Bucaramanga, Colombia.
e-mail: Jaime.martinez1@correo.uis.edu.co

Samuel Fernando Muñoz Navarro

Affiliation: Universidad Industrial de Santander; Grupo de Recobro Mejorado, Bucaramanga, Colombia.
e-mail: Samuel@uis.edu.co
APPENDIXES AND ANNEXS
Appendix A

Net/Gross Depth Oil

Field, Location Porosity Permeability OilGravity
Test Formation Pay to Top Saturation

(Operator) (ft) (ft) (%) (md) (% PV) (*API)

Mount Poso,
1 Upper Vedder 60/75 1,800 33 15,000 58 16
CA (Shell)
Midway-Sunset,
2 26C, CA Monarch Sand 260/350 1,300 27 520 48 14
(Chevron)
Cat Canyon,
3 S1-B sand 80/80 2,500 31 5,000 65 9
CA (Getty)
 15

Charco
4 Redondo, - 10-Oct 200 35 2,500 34 18
TX (Texaco)
Yorba Linda, Upper
5 325/- 650 30 600 - 14
CA (Shell) Conglomerate
Duri Field,
6 Duri Sandstone 100/- 525 37 - 62 22
Sumatra (Caltex)
Tia Juana, M6, Unconsolidated
7 Venezuela 125/250 1,624 38 2,800 85 12
Sand
(Maraven)
Kern River Sec.
Kern River
8 3, 70/- 705 35 7,600 52 14
CA (Chevron) Sand
S. Belridge,
9 Tulare D and E 91/210 1,100 35 3,000 76 13
CA (Mobil)

Kern River,
10 K1,R,R1 60/- 900 35 3,000 50 14
CA (Getty)
Winkelman
11 Dome, Nugget sand 73/- 1,220 25 638 75 14
WY (Amoco)
Peace River,
Upper
12 Alta. 90/40 1,800 28 1,050 77 9
(Shell/AOSTRA) Bullhead
Cold Lake,
13 Lemming Clearwater 150/155 1,500 35 1,500 60 10
Alta. (Esso)

Oil Viscosity At Average Cumulative

Reservoir Reservoir Primary Recovery
Reservoir Pattern Injection Steam/Oil
Test Temperature Pressure production Factor
Temperature Type Rate Ratio
(cp) (°F) (psl) (% IOIP) (BWPD/well) (% OIP) (bbl/bbl)

1 280 110 100 35 Line 2,000 60* 5.6

Irregular
2 1,500 105 75 - 3,000 65 6.25
five-spot
Inverted
3 25000 110 - 12 500 43* 4.*
five-spot
Inverted
4 95 72 10 - 580 73 20
five-spot
Inverted
5 6,400 85 - 5 850 50 -
nine-spot

6 160 98 180 10 cyclic 1,000 8 0.16

Inverted
7 5,000 113 350 11 seven- 3,150 45 2.94
spot
8 2,710 80 140 13 600 63 5.88
 16

Inverted
seven-
spot

9 1,600 95 180 9 Line 600 26 3.57

10 4,000 95 50 10 Five-spot 400 73 4.76

11 900 81 210 - Five-spot 241 50 5

Inverted
12 200,000 62 530 0 seven- 1,500 50* 4.*
spot

13 100,000 55 450 0 Cyclic 1,500 20 2.5

*Predicted