SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program Primary funding is provided by The SPE Foundation through member donations and a contribution from Offshore Europe The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their professionals to serve as lecturers Additional support provided by AIME Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer Program www.spe.org/dl 1 A New Heavy Oil Recovery Technology to Maximize Performance and Minimize Environmental Impact David H.-S. Law Schlumberger Heavy Oil Technical Director North America Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer Program www.spe.org/dl 2 Outline • Global p perspective p of heavy y oil • Overview of recovery processes –S Steam-based ea based thermal e a p processes ocesses • Environmental impacts from current y oil recovery y heavy • Technology development to meet g environmental challenges – Hybrid steam-solvent process: from research concept to field pilots • Conclusions 3 Heavy Oil Heavy Oil: Crude Oil with API < 22.3°(sp. gr. = 0.92) Heavy Oil API Gravity Viscosity (cp) 10º – 22.3º 100 – 10,000 Extra Heavy Oil < 10º 100 – 10,000 Bitumen < 10º > 10,000 Source: 12th World Petroleum Congress (WPC), 1987 Total World Crude Oil Resources: 9 – 13 trillion bbls More than 2/3 of total oil resources are heavy oil and bitumen Oil Resources Conventional oil 30% Heavy Oil 15% Bitumen & Oil Sands 30% Extra Heavy Oil 25% Source: International Energy Agency (IEA) 4 Global Heavy Oil Resources Heavy oil can be found in all continents both on-shore & off-shore except Antarctica 5 Global Heavy Oil Reserves Billion bbls in Place (by Country) 350+ 10+ 50+ <10 Heavy oil can be found in all continents both on-shore & off-shore except Antarctica Source: http://www.HeavyOilinfo.com 6 Global Heavy Oil Production Canada Oil Sands 1000 KBOPD 200 Insitu Bitumen 400 USA HO Production UK India API 11-20 API 8-18 Egypt 30 55 API 15-17 API 12-20 320 Iraq API 9-19 65 55 API 16 Mexico API 15-20 Cantarrel 2080 Colombia API 11-20 629 Yemen 80 15 API 12-20 API 19-20 Ecuador 180 API 12-20 Venezuela HO 340 China Trinidad Indonesia Oman 35 API 15-20 Duri HO 210 35 API 15-20 API 7-20 25 API 14-20 Brazil 250 Source : Oil and Gas Journal Dec 2005; Upstream Mar 2006 API 11-20 Global in-situ heavy oil production ≈ 5 million bbl/day 7 Viscosiity (cp) a at reservo oir T Variety of Viscous Oils 10,000,000 1,000,000 Viscosity Reduction (Add Heat or Solvent) Bitumen Canada US Venezuela/Colombia 100,000 China India/Indonesia 10,000 US Canada 1,000 100 Primary Production; Water Flooding; EOR Extra Heavy Oil 10 Heavy Oil 1 0.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 API Gravity 35 40 45 50 Source: OGJ EOR Survey (April 2004) There are many ways to recover heavy oil 8 Heavy Oil Recovery Processes Recovery Processes Thermal Primary Cold Production CHOPS Steam-Based CSS Flooding SAGD CHOPS: Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sands CSS: Cyclic Steam Stimulation SAGD: Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage THAI: Toe-to-Heel Air Injection VAPEX: Vapour Extraction Combustion Fire Flooding THAI Surface Mining Non-Thermal Water Flooding Chemical Flooding VAPEX Steam-based thermal recovery processes are most extensively used 9 Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) CSS • Single well operation • Injection/production cycle: – Steam injection j – shut-in (soak) – Oil production • Recovery R ffactor (RF) ≈ 15% OOIP (original oil-inplace) Source: http://www.HeavyOilinfo.com 10 Steamflooding Steamflooding g • Multi-well operation in regular pattern • Inject steam into one or more wells • Drive oil to separate producers • Recovery factor (RF) ≈ 50% OOIP Source: http://www.HeavyOilinfo.com 11 Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) SAGD • Horizontal well pair near bottom of pay – Upper steam injector – Lower oil producer • S Steam chamber h b rises i upward, d then, spreads sideway • Oil drains downward to producer • Recovery factor (RF) > 50% OOIP Source: http://www.HeavyOilinfo.com 12 Steam-Based Thermal R Recovery P Processes • Veryy energy gy intensive and inefficient Thermal Efficiency for Each Stage: Steam Generator Transmission to Well Well to Reservoir Flow in Reservoir (75 – 85%) (75 – 95%) (80 – 95%) (25 – 75%) Source: Butler, “GravDrain’s Blackbook”, (1998) Final Efficiency: 11% - 58% • Significant environmental impacts – Land: Surface footprint – Air: Greenhouse g gas ((GHG)) emission – Water: Water usage and disposal 13 Surface Footprint • Small well spacing for heavy oil – less than 10 acres pattern for CSS and Steam flooding >15,000 1 000 wells ll in ~60 km2 (~23 mile2) Chevron Steamflooding Operation Kern River, California, USA 14 Surface Footprint • Reduce surface footprint with horizontal or multi-lateral wells (e.g., SAGD) CNRL CSS Operation with Horizontal Wells Primrose, Alberta, Canada (62,000 bbl/d) Reduce Surface Footprint ESSO CSS Operation with Vertical Wells Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada (140,000 bbl/d) Sources: Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) of Alberta Sources: Google Satellite Map 15 Surface Footprint • Reduce surface footprint p ((further)) with SAGD well pairs Suncor Su co Firebag ebag S SAGD G Ope Operation at o with t Horizontal o o ta Well-Pairs, e a s, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada (35,000 bbl/day/Stage) Central Plant Central Plant Stage 2 Pads Stage 1 Pads Stage 1 Pads 16 Greenhouse Gas Emission • GHG emission from steam generation at 250°C – Burning natural gas (CO2 emission = 0.532 tonne/Mscf) 160 CSS & Steamflooding 140 SAGD Environmental Canada Data 131.8 120 105.4 CO2 100 Emission (kg) / Oil 80 Recovery 60 (bbl) 40 158.1 Reduced GHG Emission 79.1 52.7 26.4 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 Steam-Oil Ratio (SOR) 6 Improved SOR 17 Water Usage and Disposal • Water usage for steam generation 6 6 CSS & Steamflooding 5 5 SAGD 4 4 Water Usage (bbl) 3 / Oil Recovery 2 (bbl) Reduced Water Usage 3 2 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Improved SOR Steam-Oil Ratio (SOR) 18 Concept for New Technology Fast • Steam-only y Methods M th d tto Reduce Viscosity: Slow – Heat transfer controlled – High oil rate – High energy and water requirements – Commercial applications • Solvent-only Solvent only – Diffusion/dispersion controlled – Low oil rate – Low energy and water requirements – Field pilot stage Courtesy of Alberta Research Council (ARC) 19 Hybrid Steam Steam-Solvent Solvent Processes • Synergize y g advantages g of steam and solvent processes • Enhance oil rates and lower SOR • Reduce environmental impact Solvent Heat Hybrid Steam-Solvent Solvent + Steam Steam + Solvent Steam Co-inject small amount of solvent with steam 20 Technology Development H b id St Hybrid Steam-Solvent S l t Processes P Laboratory Studies • Proof of concept • Property measurements • Scale-up Scale up Workflow N Numerical i l Modelling M d lli • Model validation • Mechanistic Analysis • Field Field-scale scale prediction Field Application • Pilot tests • Commercial Operation 21 Hybrid Steam Steam-Solvent Solvent Processes • Nomenclature – Expanding Solvent-SAGD (ES-SAGD) – Solvent Aided-Process (SAP) – Liquid Addition to Steam for Enhancing Recovery (LASER) – Many more …. SAGD mode: ES-SAGD and SAP CSS mode: LASER • Different strategies: – Solvent selection – Steam - solvent ratio – Continuous or cyclic 22 Laboratory Studies S l Solvent t Selection S l ti • Hexane and diluents (a solvent mixture) – Evaporation temperatures closest to steam temperature – Steam-solvent ratio = 64 (by vol.) “1-D” ES-SAGD Experiments Courtesy of Alberta Research Council (ARC), Canada ES-SAGD: Nasr, et al., JCPT (2003) 23 Laboratory Studies P f off Concept Proof C t • ES-SAGD versus steam-only • Continuous diluents co-injected with steam – Steam-solvent ratio = 6.9 (by vol.) “2-D” Scale-Model Experiments Oil Pro oduction Rate e (g/min) 12 ES-SAGD SAGD 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 Courtesy of Alberta Research Council (ARC), Canada 90 180 270 Time (min) 360 Nasr and Ayodele, SPE 101717 (2006) ES-SAGD: Deng, et al., WHOC (2006) 450 24 Numerical Modeling M d lV Model Validation lid ti • History match of 2 2-D D scale scale-model model experiments Oil Production Rate Oil Production Rate (g/min) O 12 Temperature Profile @ 240 minutes Test Simulation 9 °C C 6 3 0 0 90 180 270 Time (min) 360 450 Lab Test Solvent Production Rate (85% Recovery) Solvent P Production Rate (g/m min) 6 Test Simulation 4 2 Si l ti R lt Simulation 0 0 90 180 270 Time (min) 360 450 ES-SAGD: Deng, et al., WHOC (2006) 25 Numerical Modeling M h i ti A Mechanistic Analysis l i • Understand ES-SAGD process mechanisms – Solvent appears along slope of steam chamber – Observation not available from experiments Profile @ 240 minutes Gas Saturation Oil Saturation Diluents mole fraction in Gas Phase Diluents mole fraction in Oil Phase ES-SAGD: Deng, et al., WHOC (2006) 26 Numerical Modeling M h i ti A Mechanistic Analysis l i Temperature Profile @ 240 minutes • Understand ESSAGD process mechanisms Oil – Solvent further reduces oil viscosity along the slope of steam chamber Oil With Solvent ES-SAGD: Deng, et al., WHOC (2006) 27 Numerical Modeling Fi ld S l P Field-Scale Prediction di ti • A bitumen asset in Western Canada – Preheat: 100 days; SAGD: 150 days – ES-SAGD: after 250 days – Solvent composition: 98% C4 & 2% C1 So 0 Height of reservoir is exaggerated gg 1 Saturation Distribution x z 170 ft y SAGD Well Pair Location ES-SAGD: Akinboyewa, et al., SPE 129963 (2010) 28 Numerical Modeling Fi ld S l P Field-Scale Prediction di ti Oil Production and Steam Injection Increase Solvent Concentration SAGD Base Case Increase Solvent Concentration SAGD Base Case % Solvent in Steam (by vol.) • Improve oil production with solvent • Reduce steam injection with solvent ES-SAGD: Akinboyewa, et al., SPE 129963 (2010) 29 Numerical Modeling Fi ld S l P Field-Scale Prediction di ti In-Situ Upgrading Increase Solvent Concentration SAGD Base Case • The presence of solvent in produced oil improves its API – API is calculated based on composition of produced oil ES-SAGD: Akinboyewa, et al., SPE 129963 (2010) 30 Numerical Modeling Fi ld S l P Field-Scale Prediction di ti Gas Saturation Distribution Steam Chamber with SAGD Base Case Steam Chamber with 5% Solvent Injection High Low • S Solvent l t slows l vertical ti l growth th off steam t chamber h b (reduces heat loss) and allows it to grow more laterally ES-SAGD: Akinboyewa, et al., SPE 129963 (2010) 31 Challenges from Lab to Field O ti l S Optimal Solvent l t Injection I j ti Strategy St t Continuous solvent injection Constant Rate Ramp-Up Ramp-Down Ramp-Up Ramp-Down Cyclic solvent injection Constant Rate • Unrealistic to test all strategies in the field • Lab experiments and numerical studies can be useful 32 Challenges from Lab to Field O ti l A Optimal Amountt off Solvent S l t • Not enough eno gh solvent sol ent – Less solvent dissolution in oleic phase – Less oil viscosity reduction • Too much solvent – Excessive solvent in gaseous phase that forms an insulation i l ti bl blanket k t near steam chamber interface – Hinder propagation of steam front SAGD Steam Chamber Interface Steam + Gas oil Not Enough Solvent Equilibrium Steam St + Gas oil il Optimal p Amount of Solvent Insulation Blanket Steam + Gas Too Much Solvent oil Solvent SAP: Gupta, et al., SPE 137543 (2010) 33 Challenges from Lab to Field Oil / Solve ent Rate (t/d/m m); Solvent Con nc. (oleic mol.. fr.) O ti l A Optimal Amountt off Solvent S l t M i Maximum N Numerical i l Prediction P di ti Solvent Conc. at Interface Oil Rate Solvent Rate SAGD Steam Chamber Solvent at steam chamber interface Time (days) • Optimal amount of solvent varies throughout lifetime of process SAP: Gupta, et al., SPE 137543 (2010) 34 Field Pilot Tests in Canada ALBERTA Athabasca Peace River Fort McMurray y Hybrid Process Field Pilots: Suncor / CNRL Burnt Lake – ES-SAGD Suncor Firebag – ES-SAGD Nexen Long Lake – ES-SAGD EnCana Senlac – SAP EnCana Christina Lake – SAP Imperial Oil Cold Lake – LASER Edmonton Cold Lake Lloydminster Heavy Oil / Bitumen D Deposits it Calgary 100 mile Canada 125 km U.S.A. Saskatchewan 35 Field Pilot Test E C EnCana S Senlac l (J (January 2002) • One well pair already in SAGD operation – Achieved peak rate • Butane (C4) was used as solvent Oil Production Rate (bbl/d) SOR and Energy Intensity (EI) Solvent Solvent Expected SAGD Performance Expected SAGD Performance SAP: Gupta, et al., CIPC (2002) & Gupta, et al., JCPT (2005) 36 Field Pilot Test EnCana Christina Lake (April 2004) • One well pair already in SAGD operation – Achieved peak rate (after two years) – Worst performance in 4 side-by-side well pairs • Butane (C4) was used as solvent Oil Production Rate (tonne/d) Plant Shutdown SOR Solvent Solvent Instrument Malfunction 04-Mar 01-Aug 20-Dec 04-Mar 01-Aug SAP: Gupta and Gittins, CIPC (2005) & Gupta and Gittins, JCPT (2006) 20-Dec 37 Field Pilot Test Performance E C EnCana S Senlac l & Ch Christina i ti L Lake k • Very Ver encouraging enco raging pilot res results lts – Improved initial oil rate over 50% in Senlac and 150% in Christina Lake – Reduced SOR – Improved API°gravity of produced oil over a range of 0.7° - 1° • Economic improvement – Senlac SAP: Gupta, et al., CIPC (2002) & Gupta, et al., JCPT (2005) Gupta and Gittins, CIPC (2005) & Gupta and Gittins, JCPT (2006) • Cenovus ((previously y EnCana)) is planning g SAP commercialization near Christina Lake 38 Field Pilot Test I Imperial i l Oil C Cold ld L Lake k (M (March h 2002) • One CSS pad chosen from two adjacent id ti ll performed identically f d pads d considered id d – Cycle 6 – CSS; Cycle 7 - LASER • Diluent (C5+ condensate) was used as solvent Oil Production Rate (m3/d) & Cumulative OSR LASER CSS Base CSS wells LASER Injection wells CCS wells influenced by other operations CSS wells produced substantial diluent LASER: Leaute and Carey, CIPC (2005) 39 Field Pilot Test Performance I Imperial i l Oil C Cold ld L Lake k • Very encouraging first LASER cycle (cycle 7) results – Recovered 80% of injected diluent – OSR declined for CSS p pad but increased for LASER pad – Achieved an incremental “oil-to-solvent oil to solvent storage ratio*” of 10 * m3 oil produced / m3 solvent retained in reservoir LASER: Leaute and Carey, CIPC (2005) 40 LASER Commercialization I Imperial i l Oil C Cold ld L Lake k • 10 pads • Diluent injection (Q3 2007 – April 2009) in 10 pads • Production is expected to reach peak rate in late 2010 to early 2011 LASER: Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) of Alberta (2010) 41 Hybrid Steam-Solvent Processes R d ti off E Reduction Environmental i t l IImpacts t • Reduce surface footprint – Use horizontal wells (e.g., SAGD) • Reduce GHG and water usage – Reduce SOR by 1 in a 100,000 bbl/day project • Reduce ∼1 million tonnes/year of CO2 emission • Reduce 100,000 bbl/day of water usage for steam generation 350–MW Coal-Fired Power Plant (3 million tonnes CO2/year) • Reduce water disposal –R Recycle l significant i ifi t amountt off produced water 42 Conclusions • Hybrid steam-solvent process is a feasible h heavy oilil recovery ttechnology h l – Concept proven - lab and numerical results – Technically successful field pilot tests • Hybrid y steam-solvent processes can: – Improved oil rate and SOR – Reduce environmental impacts p – Improve quality of produced oil There is continuous improvement on heavy oil recovery technologies to meet the challenges of environmental issues 43