This application claims priority from Canadian Patent Application 2,696,638 filed Mar. 16, 2010 entitled USE OF A SOLVENT-EXTERNAL EMULSION FOR IN SITU OIL RECOVERY, the entirety of which is incorporated by reference herein.
The present invention relates generally to in situ hydrocarbon recovery. More particularly, the present invention relates to solvent injection in in situ hydrocarbon recovery, including viscous oil.
At the present time, solvent-dominated recovery processes (SDRPs) are rarely used to produce highly viscous oil. Highly viscous oils are produced primarily using thermal methods in which heat, typically in the form of steam, is added to the reservoir. Cyclic solvent-dominated recovery processes (CSDRPs) are a subset of SDRPs. A CSDRP is typically, but not necessarily, a non-thermal recovery method that uses a solvent to mobilize viscous oil by cycles of injection and production. Solvent-dominated means that the injectant comprises greater than 50% by mass of solvent or that greater than 50% of the produced oil's viscosity reduction is obtained by chemical solvation rather than by thermal means. One possible laboratory method for roughly comparing the relative contribution of heat and dilution to the viscosity reduction obtained in a proposed oil recovery process is to compare the viscosity obtained by diluting an oil sample with a solvent to the viscosity reduction obtained by heating the sample.
In a CSDRP, a viscosity-reducing solvent is injected through a well into a subterranean viscous-oil reservoir, causing the pressure to increase. Next, the pressure is lowered and reduced-viscosity oil is produced to the surface through the same well through which the solvent was injected. Multiple cycles of injection and production are used. In some instances, a well may not undergo cycles of injection and production, but only cycles of injection or only cycles of production.
CSDRPs may be particularly attractive for thinner or lower-oil-saturation reservoirs. In such reservoirs, thermal methods utilizing heat to reduce viscous oil viscosity may be inefficient due to excessive heat loss to the overburden and/or underburden and/or reservoir with low oil content.
References describing specific CSDRPs include: Canadian Patent No. 2,349,234 (Lim et al.); G. B. Lim et al., “Three-dimensional Scaled Physical Modeling of Solvent Vapour Extraction of Cold Lake Bitumen”, The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 35(4), pp. 32-40, April 1996; G. B. Lim et al., “Cyclic Stimulation of Cold Lake Oil Sand with Supercritical Ethane”, SPE Paper 30298, 1995; U.S. Pat. No. 3,954,141 (Allen et al.); and M. Feali et al., “Feasibility Study of the Cyclic VAPEX Process for Low Permeable Carbonate Systems”, International Petroleum Technology Conference Paper 12833, 2008.
The family of processes within the Lim et al. references describes embodiments of a particular SDRP that is also a cyclic solvent-dominated recovery process (CSDRP). These processes relate to the recovery of heavy oil and bitumen from subterranean reservoirs using cyclic injection of a solvent in the liquid state which vaporizes upon production. The family of processes within the Lim et al. references may be referred to as CSP™ processes.
Turning away from solvent-dominated recovery processes for the moment, a background of emulsions will now be provided. Emulsions are mixtures where one fluid phase is dispersed in another. The emulsions typically comprise two immiscible phases. The two immiscible phases include a continuous (or external) phase and a discontinuous (or internal) phase. Oil-water emulsions and water-gas emulsions are the most common types of emulsions. Oil-water emulsions may be either oil-in-water emulsions or water-in oil-emulsions. Emulsions may be stable for long periods of time or be unstable and relatively rapidly separate into stratified phases. Addition of surface active agents may stabilize an emulsion, as the surface-active agent resides at the two-phase interface, reducing surface energy, and providing stability. Foams are special forms of emulsions, where the internal phase is a gas phase and a liquid is the external phase (i.e., the continuous phase). The liquid may be either oil or an aqueous fluid. Foams are also stabilized by the addition of surface-active agents. A three-phase emulsion may also be formed among oil, water, and gas. Also, surface active solids, such as certain clays, may be added to stabilize emulsions.
Some emulsions are thermodynamically stable. Such emulsions are also referred to as “microemulsions”, since the internal phase droplets may be very small. Alternatively, so-called “macroemulsions” are not thermodynamically stable and, given sufficient time, will segregate. Such emulsions are said to be kinetically stable. Nevertheless, certain macroemulsions may take months or years to significantly segregate, especially if surface active agents are present. Despite the name, the droplets in a “macroemulsion” may be fairly small, e.g. 0.1-10 microns in diameter. In the following discussion, the term “emulsion” is understood to mean a macroemulsion if not specified as a microemulsion or a thermodynamically-stable emulsion.
Emulsions have been used in oil recovery processes for multiple purposes. In some applications, surface-active agents (i.e., surfactants) have been added to a waterflood operation to form an oil-water emulsion. This is commonly known as a surfactant-flood. A surfactant-flood may be followed by injection of water viscosified with dissolved polymer to provide a more stable displacement front. This process is known as surfactant-polymer flood. In some processes, an alkali may be added to the surfactant to reduce surfactant adsorption, or to generate in situ surfactant by reaction with the oil. This process is called an alkali-surfactant-polymer flood. (“ASP flood”). In all of the above mentioned applications, the surfactant reduces the oil-water interfacial tension forming an emulsion, and this leads to additional oil recovery. Combined chemical agents can produce synergetic action, which not only reduces the amount of the chemical agents used, but also results in higher oil recovery than that obtained by a single chemical drive or two-component combined drive.
Foams in the oil industry are generally used in three different applications. The first application is for blocking the breakthrough of water or gas that is being used as a secondary oil recovery technique by pushing the oil to a receiving well. The foam preferentially flows to zones of relatively higher permeability in the formation and acts to decrease the permeation of the higher permeability zones, in order to block the breakthrough. The second application is for using the foam itself as an agent to push oil to a receiving well in secondary oil recovery. The third application is the use of foams in low density drilling muds to aid in removal of drilling debris.
Certain surfactants, such as certain fluorinated surfactants, can be used for these applications because they can efficiently and effectively foam both water and oil with gas without promoting the formation of liquid-liquid emulsions. Since these surfactants do not participate in liquid-liquid emulsification, less surfactant can be used. Certain fluorinated surfactants are also preferred surfactants in these applications because they remain surface active under the harsh conditions experienced in an oil formation, e.g., high temperature/pressure, high electrolyte concentrations, etc.
The foams produced from using fluorinated surfactants are very stable. However, this stability can be an issue once the foams are recovered on the surface, since it is desirable to break these foams for processing of the produced oils. Another undesirable characteristic of surfactants is that they can leave residue behind on the formation.
As discussed above, a viscosity-reducing solvent is applied to in situ viscous oil to reduce its viscosity and thus can provide a non-thermal mechanism to improve the mobility of the viscous oil. Hydrocarbon solvents include light hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane, or butane or liquid solvents such as pipeline diluents, natural condensate streams, or fractions of synthetic crudes. The diluent can be added to steam and flashed to a vapor state or be maintained as a liquid at elevated temperature and pressure, depending on the particular diluent composition. While in contact with the bitumen, the saturated solvent vapor dissolves into the bitumen.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,350,014 discloses a method for producing heavy oil or bitumen from a formation undergoing thermal recovery. That patent describes a method for producing oil or bitumen in the form of oil-in-water emulsions by carefully maintaining the temperature profile of the swept zone above a minimum temperature.
Further, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,060,727, 5,027,898, 4,540,050, 4,513,819, 4,444,261, 4,280,559, 5,855,243 and 5,910,467 disclose methods of viscous oil recovery using liquid-liquid or liquid-gas emulsions.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,342,256 claims the recovery of oil from subterranean oil-bearing formations wherein CO2 is introduced into the formation and then driven through the formation from an injection well to a recovery well by means of an aqueous drive liquid, the improvement which comprises disposing a surfactant solution, capable of forming a stable foam under formation conditions, in the formation not later than the introduction of the CO2, and prior to the driving of the CO2 by means of the aqueous drive liquid.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,495,995 claims a process for temporarily plugging permeable portions of a subterranean formation which comprises driving a composition formed by interacting aqueous surfactant solution and CO2 in the form of a dense fluid or a liquid into the permeable portions of the underground formation wherein the subterranean formation is at a pressure in a range of about 700 to about 5000 psi and a temperature in a range of about 50° to about 200° F. The patent also claims introducing into the subterranean formation a drive fluid, and producing recovered oil and drive fluid from at least one additional well penetrating the subterranean formation.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,706,752 claims a method for reducing the permeability of higher permeability zones of an oil bearing subterranean reservoir having heterogeneous permeability and being penetrated by at least one well, the method comprising injecting through a well and into the reservoir an aqueous liquid solution of a water soluble surface active agent; a foam emplacement gas mixture consisting essentially of carbon dioxide and a crude oil-insoluble, noncondensable, non-hydrocarbon gas, the injection being under conditions such that the gas mixture maintains a density between 0.01 and 0.42 grams per centimeter in the reservoir; allowing stable foam to form in the higher permeability zones; diverting subsequently injected gases into lower permeability zones of the reservoir without destroying the stable foam; and producing oil from the reservoir. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 5,105,884 claims a process for improving sweep efficiency in subterranean oil-bearing formations requiring regions of high and low permeability.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,927,404 describes a method of using the solids-stabilized emulsion as a drive fluid to displace hydrocarbons for enhanced oil recovery. U.S. Pat. No. 5,855,243 claims a similar method of using a solids-stabilized emulsion, whose viscosity is reduced by the addition of a gas, as a drive fluid. U.S. Pat. No. 5,910,467 claims solids-stabilized emulsion described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,855,243. U.S. Pat. No. 6,068,054 describes a method for using solids-stabilized emulsion as a barrier for diverting the flow of fluids in the formation.
Use of emulsified aqueous acids for stimulating reservoirs is known in the art. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,303,018 describes a method of acidizing a subterranean formation where, in some embodiments, a strong acid is emulsified within an oil.
A problem that remains in solvent-dominated in situ oil recovery, is to maximize extraction of oil from oil reservoirs, including viscous oil reservoirs with maximum economy, minimizing solvent usage, minimum loss of solvent in the reservoir, and to leave minimal residual oil in the oil reservoirs. Solvent recovery remains an important component of process economics, and a need continues to exist for an improved method to minimize solvent use while maximizing oil recovery.
It is an object of the present invention to obviate or mitigate at least one disadvantage of previous processes.
In one aspect, the present invention provides a way to reduce solvent usage in solvent-dominated hydrocarbon recovery processes through the use of an emulsion. Injection of an emulsion into an oil reservoir is performed as an alternative or supplement to solvent injection to minimize solvent usage per unit amount of oil recovered. In some embodiments the emulsion contains solvent. In some embodiments the external-phase of the emulsion comprises solvent. In such embodiments, the internal phase of the solvent-external emulsion may be an aqueous liquid or a gas. In some embodiments, the emulsion is an aqueous-external, vapor-internal emulsion with solvent being injected separately or simultaneously.
In one aspect, the present invention provides a method of recovering hydrocarbons from an underground reservoir of the hydrocarbons, the method comprising:
(a) injecting fluid into the reservoir, comprising an emulsion and a viscosity-reducing solvent,
(b) allowing the solvent to contact and at least partially dissolve into the hydrocarbons in the reservoir and reduce the viscosity of the hydrocarbons; and
(c) producing reduced viscosity hydrocarbons, the solvent having a viscosity at reservoir pressure and temperature less than 1% of the viscosity of the hydrocarbons at the same pressure and temperature, the emulsion having an internal phase and an external phase, and the internal phase being substantially chemically inert with respect to components in the reservoir.
In certain embodiments, the following features may be present.
At least 25 mass %, or at least 50 mass %, of the solvent in step (a) may enter the reservoir as a liquid.
At least 50 mass %, or at least 75 mass %, of the injected fluid excluding the internal phase of injected emulsion may comprise viscosity-reducing solvent.
The injected solvent may form part of the injected emulsion.
The external phase of the emulsion may comprise the solvent.
The hydrocarbons may be a viscous oil having a viscosity of at least 10 cP (centipoise) at initial reservoir conditions.
The solvent may comprise ethane, propane, butane, pentane, heptane, hexane, octane, nonane, gas-condensate, a fraction of the reservoir hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, or a combination thereof. The solvent may comprise ethane, propane, butane, pentane, carbon dioxide, or a combination thereof. The solvent may comprise greater than 50 mass % propane.
The internal phase of the emulsion may comprise an aqueous liquid. The internal phase may have a pH between 5.0 and 9.0. The aqueous liquid may comprise brine produced from the reservoir.
The internal phase of the emulsion may comprise a gas in a vapor state in the reservoir. The gas may comprise N2, CO2, methane, or natural gas.
The internal phase of the emulsion may comprise at least 10 vol % of the emulsion at a pressure and temperature condition within the reservoir.
At least 80 vol % of the internal phase of the emulsion may comprise droplets or bubble inclusions less than 5 microns in diameter.
The emulsion may be at least partially stabilized through an addition of a surfactant, or through an addition of clay or silica particles of less than 1 micron in maximum particle length, or through an addition of asphaltenes or an asphaltic fraction obtained from recovered oil.
The external phase of the emulsion may comprise a polymer to increase a viscosity of the emulsion.
The injection of the emulsion may be effected in alternating fashion with injection of a non-emulsified viscosity-reducing solvent. The injection of the emulsion may be effected after injection of a non-emulsified viscosity-reducing solvent. The non-emulsified solvent may have a different composition than solvent in the emulsion.
The hydrocarbon recovery may be by a cyclic solvent-dominated recovery process. The injection of the emulsion may be effected at the end of non-emulsified solvent injection cycles.
The hydrocarbon recovery may be by a cyclic solvent-dominated recovery process comprising injecting the emulsion and the solvent into a well completed in the reservoir, and then halting injection, and then producing at least a fraction of the emulsion, the solvent, and the hydrocarbons from the reservoir, and then halting production, and then repeating such cycles of injection and production. The injection and production may be effected through a common wellbore. The cyclic solvent-dominated recovery process may be a non-thermal recovery process.
The hydrocarbon recovery may be through a non-cyclic solvent-dominated recovery process.
The emulsion may be an aqueous-external, vapor-internal emulsion.
Other aspects and features of the present invention will become apparent to those ordinarily skilled in the art upon review of the following description of specific embodiments of the invention in conjunction with the accompanying figures.
Embodiments of the present invention will now be described, by way of example only, with reference to the attached Figures, wherein:
The term “viscous oil” as used herein means a hydrocarbon, or mixture of hydrocarbons, that occurs naturally and that has a viscosity of at least 10 cP (centipoise) at initial reservoir conditions. Viscous oil includes oils generally defined as “heavy oil” or “bitumen”. Bitumen is classified as an extra heavy oil, with an API gravity of about 10° or less, referring to its gravity as measured in degrees on the American Petroleum Institute (API) Scale. Heavy oil has an API gravity in the range of about 22.3° to about 10°. The terms viscous oil, heavy oil, and bitumen are used interchangeably herein since they may be extracted using similar processes.
In situ is a Latin phrase for “in the place” and, in the context of hydrocarbon recovery, refers generally to a subsurface hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir. For example, in situ temperature means the temperature within the reservoir. In another usage, an in situ oil recovery technique is one that recovers oil from a reservoir within the earth.
The term “formation” as used herein refers to a subterranean body of rock that is distinct and continuous. The terms “reservoir” and “formation” may be used interchangeably.
During a CSDRP, a reservoir accommodates the injected solvent and non-solvent fluid by compressing the pore fluids and, more importantly in some embodiments, by dilating the reservoir pore space when sufficient injection pressure is applied. Pore dilation is a particularly effective mechanism for permitting solvent to enter into reservoirs filled with viscous oils when the reservoir comprises largely unconsolidated sand grains. Injected solvent fingers into the oil sands and mixes with the viscous oil to yield a reduced viscosity mixture with significantly higher mobility than the native viscous oil. Without intending to be bound by theory, the primary mixing mechanism is thought to be dispersive mixing, not diffusion. Preferably, injected fluid in each cycle replaces the volume of previously recovered fluid and then adds sufficient additional fluid to contact previously uncontacted viscous oil. Preferably, the injected fluid, excluding the internal phase of injected emulsions, comprises greater than 50% by mass of solvent.
On production, the pressure is reduced and the solvent(s), non-solvent injectant, and viscous oil flow back to the same well and are produced to the surface. As the pressure in the reservoir falls, the produced fluid rate declines with time. Production of the solvent/viscous oil mixture and other injectants may be governed by any of the following mechanisms: gas drive via solvent vaporization and native gas exsolution, compaction drive as the reservoir dilation relaxes, fluid expansion, and gravity-driven flow. The relative importance of the mechanisms depends on static properties such as solvent properties, native GOR (Gas to Oil Ratio), fluid and rock compressibility characteristics, and reservoir depth, but also depends on operational practices such as solvent injection volume, producing pressure, and viscous oil recovery to-date, among other factors.
During an injection/production cycle, the volume of produced oil should be above a minimum threshold to economically justify continuing operations. In addition to an acceptably high production rate, the oil should also be recovered in an efficient manner. One measure of the efficiency of a CSDRP is the ratio of produced oil volume to injected solvent volume over a time interval, called the OISR (produced Oil to Injected Solvent Ratio). Typically, the time interval is one complete injection/production cycle. Alternatively, the time interval may be from the beginning of first injection to the present or some other time interval. When the ratio falls below a certain threshold, further solvent injection may become uneconomic, indicating the solvent should be injected into a different well operating at a higher OISR. The exact OISR threshold depends on the relative price of viscous oil and solvent, among other factors. If either the oil production rate or the OISR becomes too low, the CSDRP may be discontinued. Even if oil rates are high and the solvent use is efficient, it is also important to recover as much of the injected solvent as possible if it has economic value. The remaining solvent may be recovered by producing to a low pressure to vaporize the solvent in the reservoir to aid its recovery. One measure of solvent recovery is the percentage of solvent recovered divided by the total injected. In addition, rather than abandoning the well, another recovery process may be initiated. To maximize the economic return of a producing oil well, it is desirable to maintain an economic oil production rate and OISR as long as possible and then recover as much of the solvent as possible.
The OISR is one measure of solvent efficiency. Those skilled in the art will recognize that there are a multitude of other measures of solvent efficiency, such as the inverse of the OISR, or measures of solvent efficiency on a temporal basis that is different from the temporal basis discussed in this disclosure. Solvent recovery percentage is just one measure of solvent recovery. Those skilled in the art will recognize that there are many other measures of solvent recovery, such as the percentage loss, volume of unrecovered solvent per volume of recovered oil, or its inverse, the volume of produced Oil to Volume of Lost Solvent Ratio (OLSR).
Solvent Composition
The solvent may be a light, but condensable, hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons comprising ethane, propane, or butane. Additional injectants may include CO2, natural gas, C3+ hydrocarbons, ketones, and alcohols. Non-solvent co-injectants may include steam, hot water, or hydrate inhibitors. Viscosifiers may be useful in adjusting solvent viscosity to reach desired injection pressures at available pump rates and may include diesel, viscous oil, bitumen, or diluent. Viscosifiers may also act as solvents and therefore may provide flow assurance near the wellbore and in the surface facilities in the event of asphaltene precipitation or solvent vaporization during shut-in periods. Carbon dioxide or hydrocarbon mixtures comprising carbon dioxide may also be desirable to use as a solvent.
In one embodiment, the solvent comprises greater than 50% C2-C5 hydrocarbons on a mass basis. In one embodiment, the solvent is primarily propane, optionally with diluent, when it is desirable, to adjust the properties of the injectant to improve performance. Alternatively, wells may be subjected to compositions other than these main solvents to improve well pattern performance, for example CO2 flooding of a mature operation.
Phase of Injected Solvent
In one embodiment, the solvent is injected into the well at a pressure in the underground reservoir above a liquid/vapor phase change pressure such that at least 25 mass % of the solvent enters the reservoir in the liquid phase. Alternatively, at least 50, 70, or even 90 mass % of the solvent may enter the reservoir in the liquid phase. Injection as a liquid may be preferred for achieving high pressures because pore dilation at high pressures is thought to be a particularly effective mechanism for permitting solvent to enter into reservoirs filled with viscous oils when the reservoir comprises largely unconsolidated sand grains. Injection as a liquid also may allow higher overall injection rates than injection as a gas.
In an alternative embodiment, the solvent volume is injected into the well at rates and pressures such that immediately after halting injection into the injection well at least 25 mass % of the injected solvent is in a liquid state in the underground reservoir. Injection as a vapor may be preferred in order to enable more uniform solvent distribution along a horizontal well. Depending on the pressure of the reservoir, it may be desirable to significantly heat the solvent in order to inject it as a vapor. Heating of injected vapor or liquid solvent may enhance production through mechanisms described by Boberg, T. C. and Lantz, R. B., “Calculation of the production of a thermally stimulated well”, JPT, 1613-1623, December 1966. Towards the end of the injection cycle, a portion of the injected solvent, perhaps 25% or more, may become a liquid as pressure rises. Because no special effort is made to maintain the injection pressure at the saturation conditions of the solvent, liquefaction would occur through pressurization, not condensation. Downhole pressure gauges and/or reservoir simulation may be used to estimate the phase of the solvent and other co-injectants at downhole conditions and in the reservoir. A reservoir simulation is carried out using a reservoir simulator, a software program for mathematically modeling the phase and flow behavior of fluids in an underground reservoir. Those skilled in the art understand how to use a reservoir simulator to determine if 25% of the injectant would be in the liquid phase immediately after halting injection. Those skilled in the art may rely on measurements recorded using a downhole pressure gauge in order to increase the accuracy of a reservoir simulator. Alternatively, the downhole pressure gauge measurements may be used to directly make the determination without the use of reservoir simulation.
Although preferably a CSDRP is predominantly a non-thermal process in that heat is not used principally to reduce the viscosity of the viscous oil, the use of heat is not excluded. Heating may be beneficial to improve performance, improve process start-up, or provide flow assurance during production. For start-up, low-level heating (for example, less than 100° C.) may be appropriate. Low-level heating of the solvent prior to injection may also be performed to prevent hydrate formation in tubulars and in the reservoir. Heating to higher temperatures may benefit recovery.
In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method of recovering hydrocarbons, including viscous oil (e.g., heavy oil or bitumen) from an underground reservoir of the hydrocarbons by injecting a solvent-external emulsion into the reservoir, allowing the solvent to contact and dissolve into the hydrocarbons thereby reducing its viscosity, and producing reduced-viscosity hydrocarbons from the reservoir. The benefits of emulsion use may include the following: (1) the emulsion can be used to modify the viscosity of the injected solvent to aid mobility and distribution control, and (2) the emulsion can be used to lower the cost per unit reservoir volume of injectant-rich regions in the reservoir by minimizing the volume of solvent injected which simply fills pore space and contacts little oil. Emulsion systems typically have viscosities greater than the viscosity of the external phase in a non-emulsified state.
Suitable solvents for the emulsion may comprise CO2, hydrocarbons of C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, or C9, gas-condensate, a fraction of the reservoir oil, and mixtures thereof. Preferably the solvent has a liquid-phase viscosity less than 1% of the native hydrocarbons to be recovered at in situ temperature and pressure conditions. The lighter species of this group may require confining pressure, as exists in deeper reservoirs, to maintain the solvent in a liquid state. Use of such species, however, may be preferable because late in the life of a reservoir oil recovery project, it may be desirable to reduce the pressure of the reservoir to vaporize the solvent and recover the bulk of it, that is, “blow down” the reservoir. Viscosifiers may be used to adjust the solvent viscosity to reach the desired injection pressures, such as diesel, viscous oil, bitumen, diluent, or polymers.
In some embodiments, the injected emulsion may be a mixture of two or more immiscible liquids (e.g., a hydrocarbon solvent and water or brine). In other embodiments, the injected emulsion may be a mixture of a hydrocarbon solvent and gas (i.e. to form a foam). The gas may comprise CO2, nitrogen, methane, natural gas, or fraction of natural gas. Preferably the internal phase of the injected emulsion is substantially chemically inert with respect to components found in the reservoir, especially the reservoir rock. That is, the internal phase is primarily a “filler” rather than an active agent. For example, an internal aqueous phase may have a near-neutral pH of between 5.0 and 9.0 or between 6.0 and 8.0.
In some embodiments, the injected solvent-external emulsion is used in a solvent-dominated recovery process, examples of which are described in the background section. In some embodiments, the recovery process is a CSDRP, and may be, but is not limited to, CSP™ processes. Applying this process to a CSDRP, the emulsion is injected in a cyclic manner similar to the base solvent-only process. The viscosity, stability, and water-content of the emulsion may be tuned to maximize the benefit of reduced solvent storage, while allowing proper solvent-oil mixing at the solvent-chamber front and allowing the solvent to be recovered at the end of the recovery process.
In another embodiment, emulsions are selectively used during the injection cycles, either in an emulsion-alternating-solvent (similar to a water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection) manner, or as a chase injectant to pure solvent in each cycle, or in certain cycles. This option is illustrated in
For field application, it is preferable to generate the emulsion at the surface prior to injection using a continuous system to generate the emulsion. Such a method may use flow through narrow gaps adjacent to rotating surfaces (e.g., colloid mills), bladed stirrers, or high-pressure nozzles (e.g., homogenizers). Emulsion quality is generally improved by using several stages of emulsion generation (e.g., several mixers in series) where the internal phase fluid is added at more than one stage.
For the process to have significant benefit, the internal phase should comprise a significant portion of the injected emulsion. For example, the internal phase should comprise at least 10 vol %, 20 vol %, or even 30 vol % of the injected emulsion at reservoir pressure and temperature conditions. Since the injected emulsions pass through the porous media of the reservoir, the internal phase inclusions should be of a size on the order of the pores and pore throats of the reservoir rock. For example, at least 80 vol % of the internal phase in the emulsion may be associated with droplets or bubble inclusions that may be less than 5 microns in diameter.
Depending on the solvent that is used, different methods may be used to help stabilize the solvent-water emulsions. These include surface active solid particle additions or surfactant additions. In some embodiments, clay or silica particles less than 1 micron in the longest extent may be used as the surface active solid particles.
In some embodiments, emulsions may be injected into the reservoir after non-emulsified solvent has been used for a period of time to recover a portion of the viscous oil in the reservoir. In this context, use of liquid-gas emulsions (i.e., foams) may be particularly useful for diverting subsequent injection of solvent or solvent-external emulsions into regions not already well-swept of viscous oil. Solvent injected in a non-emulsified state may differ in composition from one chosen to inject in an emulsified state.
In some embodiments, water or aqueous foams (i.e., water-external water-gas emulsions) may be injected to help divert subsequent injectants towards unrecovered viscous oil and minimize the pore volume necessary to be filled by more costly solvents or solvent-external emulsions. Such water or aqueous foam injections may be performed as one-time or periodic slugs of injectant. In addition to surfactants to stabilize aqueous foams, polymer may be added to control the foam viscosity and strength. Added polymers may include polyacrylamides, polysacchirides, polyakylene oxides, or cellulose ethers in concentrations ranging from 10 ppm to 10,000 ppm.
In some embodiments, especially liquid-gas emulsions (i.e., foams), it may be beneficial to add polymer to the liquid phase to increase the viscosity of the emulsion.
The choice of liquid-internal or gas-internal emulsions may depend on availability of water versus gas. In certain areas, pressurized gas (e.g., nitrogen) may be expensive to produce or obtain (e.g., natural gas). In other areas, water may be in short supply.
Table 1 outlines the operating ranges for CSDRPs of some embodiments. The present invention is not intended to be limited by such operating ranges.
In Table 1, embodiments may be formed by combining two or more parameters and, for brevity and clarity, each of these combinations will not be individually listed.
In the preceding description, for purposes of explanation, numerous details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the embodiments of the invention. However, it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that these specific details are not required in order to practice the invention.
The above-described embodiments of the invention are intended to be examples only. Alterations, modifications and variations can be effected to the particular embodiments by those of skill in the art without departing from the scope of the invention, which is defined solely by the claims appended hereto.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2696638 | Mar 2010 | CA | national |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
849524 | Baker | Apr 1907 | A |
2188012 | Stanislaw et al. | Jan 1940 | A |
2412765 | Buddrus | Jul 1941 | A |
2365591 | Ranney | Aug 1942 | A |
2358183 | Povl | Sep 1944 | A |
2655465 | Martin | Oct 1953 | A |
3074481 | Habermann | Jan 1963 | A |
3274101 | West et al. | Jan 1964 | A |
3185634 | Craig, Jr. et al. | May 1965 | A |
3323588 | Rai et al. | Jun 1967 | A |
3342256 | Bernard G. et al. | Sep 1967 | A |
3434544 | Satter et al. | Mar 1969 | A |
3608638 | Terwilliger | Sep 1971 | A |
3671419 | Ireland et al. | Jun 1972 | A |
3704990 | Sarem et al. | Dec 1972 | A |
3705625 | Whitten et al. | Dec 1972 | A |
3707189 | Prats | Dec 1972 | A |
3739852 | Woods et al. | Jun 1973 | A |
3782465 | Bell et al. | Jan 1974 | A |
3811503 | Burnett et al. | May 1974 | A |
3818989 | Christopher et al. | Jun 1974 | A |
3823777 | Allen et al. | Jul 1974 | A |
3878892 | Allen et al. | Apr 1975 | A |
3908762 | Redford | Sep 1975 | A |
3945435 | Barry | Mar 1976 | A |
3946809 | Hagedorn | Mar 1976 | A |
3948319 | Pritchett | Apr 1976 | A |
3954141 | Allen et al. | May 1976 | A |
3956145 | Christopher, Jr. et al. | May 1976 | A |
3958636 | Perkins | May 1976 | A |
3960214 | Howell et al. | Jun 1976 | A |
3986557 | Striegler et al. | Oct 1976 | A |
4004636 | Brown et al. | Jan 1977 | A |
4007785 | Allen et al. | Feb 1977 | A |
4007787 | Cottle | Feb 1977 | A |
4008764 | Allen | Feb 1977 | A |
4010799 | Kern et al. | Mar 1977 | A |
4017383 | Beavon | Apr 1977 | A |
4017583 | Motojima et al. | Apr 1977 | A |
4020901 | Pisio et al. | May 1977 | A |
4026358 | Allen | May 1977 | A |
4034812 | Widmyer | Jul 1977 | A |
4037658 | Anderson | Jul 1977 | A |
4067391 | Dewell | Jan 1978 | A |
4085803 | Butler | Apr 1978 | A |
4099568 | Allen | Jul 1978 | A |
4109720 | Allen et al. | Aug 1978 | A |
4125044 | Carrigan et al. | Nov 1978 | A |
4223728 | Pegg | Sep 1980 | A |
4228853 | Harvey et al. | Oct 1980 | A |
4228854 | Sacuta | Oct 1980 | A |
4260019 | Blair, Jr. | Apr 1981 | A |
4280559 | Best | Jul 1981 | A |
4344485 | Butler | Aug 1982 | A |
4362213 | Tabor | Dec 1982 | A |
4412585 | Bouck | Nov 1983 | A |
4424866 | McGuire | Jan 1984 | A |
4444261 | Islip | Apr 1984 | A |
4450909 | Sacuta | May 1984 | A |
4456065 | Heim et al. | Jun 1984 | A |
4459142 | Goddin, Jr. | Jul 1984 | A |
4476928 | Green | Oct 1984 | A |
4489782 | Perkins | Dec 1984 | A |
4495995 | Chen et al. | Jan 1985 | A |
4510997 | Fitch et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
4513819 | Islip et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
4540050 | Huang et al. | Sep 1985 | A |
4617993 | Brown | Oct 1986 | A |
4627495 | Harris et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
4676889 | Hsieh et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4678036 | Hartman et al. | Jul 1987 | A |
4687058 | Casad et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
4706752 | Holm | Nov 1987 | A |
4819724 | Bou-Mikael et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4856588 | Borchardt | Aug 1989 | A |
4921576 | Hurd | May 1990 | A |
4969130 | Wason et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
5025863 | Haines et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
5027898 | Naae | Jul 1991 | A |
5052487 | Wall | Oct 1991 | A |
5060727 | Schramm et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5095984 | Irani | Mar 1992 | A |
5129457 | Sydansk | Jul 1992 | A |
5167280 | Sanchez et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5174377 | Kumar | Dec 1992 | A |
5236577 | Tipman et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5246071 | Chu | Sep 1993 | A |
5350014 | McKay | Sep 1994 | A |
5358046 | Sydansk et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5386875 | Venditto et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5400430 | Nenniger | Mar 1995 | A |
5407009 | Butler et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5607016 | Butler | Mar 1997 | A |
5674816 | Loree | Oct 1997 | A |
5720350 | McGuire | Feb 1998 | A |
5725054 | Shayegi et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5771973 | Jensen et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5826656 | McGuire et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5855243 | Bragg | Jan 1999 | A |
5876592 | Tipman et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5899274 | Frauenfeld et al. | May 1999 | A |
5910467 | Bragg | Jun 1999 | A |
5927404 | Bragg | Jul 1999 | A |
5968349 | Duyvesteyn et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
6007709 | Duyvesteyn et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6039116 | Stevenson et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6068054 | Bragg | May 2000 | A |
6074558 | Duyvesteyn et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6214175 | Heinemann et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6214213 | Tipman et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6244341 | Miller | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6318464 | Mokrys | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6357526 | Abdel-Halim et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6358403 | Brown et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6358404 | Brown et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6405799 | Vallejos et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6484805 | Perkins et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6591908 | Nasr | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6662872 | Gutek et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6708759 | Leaute et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6712215 | Scheybeler | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6769486 | Lim et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6782946 | Perkins et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6800116 | Stevens et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6883607 | Nenniger et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
7067811 | Long et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7073837 | Madlinger | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7096092 | Ramakrishnan et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7141162 | Garner et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7165616 | Jorgensen | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7165621 | Ayoub et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7234524 | Shaw et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7248969 | Patzek et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7259688 | Hirsch et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7272973 | Craig | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7289942 | Yang et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7294156 | Chakrabarty et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7303018 | Cawiezel et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7363973 | Nenniger et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7418307 | Katircioglu | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7434619 | Rossi et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7451066 | Edwards et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7464756 | Gates et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7478024 | Gurpinar et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7527096 | Chung et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7540951 | Selmen et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7546228 | Cullick et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7585407 | Duyvesteyn et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7711486 | Thigpen et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7769486 | McHenry et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
8118096 | Ayasse | Feb 2012 | B2 |
20020007947 | Patel et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20030015321 | Lim et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030141053 | Yuan et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20040149431 | Wylie et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050150844 | Hyndman et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050263437 | Howdeshell | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060113218 | Hart et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060115221 | Chalifoux et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060138036 | Garner et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060138055 | Garner et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060162922 | Chung et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060260980 | Yeung | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060289157 | Rao | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070106545 | Jowers et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070108098 | Flint et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070111903 | Engel et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070122104 | Chalifoux et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070179766 | Cullick et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070187990 | Shahbazi | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070199710 | Hocking | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20080126168 | Carney et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080167511 | Prim | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080262736 | Thigpen et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080262737 | Thigpen et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080275796 | Katircioglu | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080277113 | Stegemeier et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080294484 | Furman et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090008290 | Biswas et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090145606 | Hocking | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090159277 | Hocking | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090194282 | Beer et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100006285 | Da Silva et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100032348 | Duyvesteyn et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100147516 | Betzer-Zilevitch | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100155062 | Boone et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100218954 | Yale et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100276341 | Speirs et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110120717 | LaMont et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110198086 | Kwan et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110198091 | Sirota et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110224907 | Chalifoux | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110226471 | Wattenbarger et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110264373 | Hehmeyer et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
940853 | Jan 1974 | CA |
1015656 | Aug 1977 | CA |
1059432 | Jul 1979 | CA |
1122115 | Apr 1982 | CA |
1246993 | Dec 1988 | CA |
2043092 | Nov 1992 | CA |
2058812 | Jul 1993 | CA |
2108723 | Oct 1993 | CA |
2108349 | Nov 1993 | CA |
2075108 | Jan 1994 | CA |
2120851 | Aug 1995 | CA |
2147079 | Oct 1996 | CA |
2232403 | Feb 1998 | CA |
2185837 | Mar 1998 | CA |
2200899 | Sep 1998 | CA |
2232929 | Sep 1998 | CA |
2235085 | Oct 1999 | CA |
2270703 | Oct 2000 | CA |
2312621 | Dec 2000 | CA |
2281276 | Feb 2001 | CA |
2304938 | Feb 2001 | CA |
2243105 | Nov 2001 | CA |
2141112 | Nov 2002 | CA |
2353109 | Jan 2003 | CA |
2310959 | Jan 2004 | CA |
2471048 | Mar 2004 | CA |
2527058 | Mar 2004 | CA |
2505411 | Jul 2004 | CA |
2425840 | Oct 2004 | CA |
2306016 | Nov 2004 | CA |
2349234 | Dec 2004 | CA |
2435113 | Jan 2005 | CA |
2493677 | Jun 2005 | CA |
2455011 | Jul 2005 | CA |
2462359 | Sep 2005 | CA |
2520943 | Apr 2006 | CA |
2490734 | Jun 2006 | CA |
2494391 | Jul 2006 | CA |
2502329 | Sep 2006 | CA |
2538464 | Sep 2006 | CA |
2521248 | Mar 2007 | CA |
2587166 | Sep 2007 | CA |
2552482 | Jan 2008 | CA |
2630682 | Jun 2008 | CA |
2351148 | Jul 2008 | CA |
2591354 | Dec 2008 | CA |
2332685 | Mar 2010 | CA |
2688392 | Jun 2011 | CA |
2724806 | Jun 2011 | CA |
1355169 | Oct 2003 | EP |
2022936 | Feb 2009 | EP |
1723314 | Mar 1992 | RU |
WO9933936 | Aug 1999 | WO |
WO 2006044199 | Apr 2006 | WO |
WO 2008009114 | Jan 2008 | WO |
WO 2008070990 | Jun 2008 | WO |
WO 2009014586 | Jan 2009 | WO |
WO 2009061433 | May 2009 | WO |
WO2009067423 | May 2009 | WO |
WO 2009075962 | Jun 2009 | WO |
WO 2010039029 | Apr 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Boberg, T.C. and Lantz, R.B., “Calculation of the Production Rate of a Thermally Stimulated Well”, JPT, pp. 1613-1623, Dec. 1966. |
Feali, M, et al., “Feasibility Study of the Cyclic VAPEX Process for Low Permeable Carbonate Systems”, International Petroleum Technology Conference Paper 12833, 2008. |
Lim, G. B., et al., “Cyclic Stimulation of Cold Lake Oil Sand with Supercritical Ethane”, SPE Paper 30298, 1995, pp. 521-528. |
Lim, G. B., et al., “Three-dimensional Scaled Physical Modeling of Solvent Vapour Extraction of Cold Lake Bitumen”, The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 35(4), pp. 32-40, Apr. 1996. |
ASTM D 2887 (1997). |
Azin et al. (2007)“Investigation of the Vapex Performance in High Pressure Heavy Oil Reservoirs”. |
Black, L. (2003) “VAPEX- A New Propane Market,” Propane Canada May/Jun. 2003, http://findarticles.com/p/articies/mi—ga5410/is—200305/ai—n21332180/. |
Budd, G. (2007) “New Technology Could Substantially Boost SAGD Potential,” Oil Sands Review. |
Butler, R. M. et al. (1991) “A New Process (VAPEX) for Recovering Heavy Oils Using Hot Water and Hydrocarbon Vapour,” Jrnl. of Canadian Petroleum Tech., v. 30, pp. 97-106. |
Butler, R. M. et al. (1993) “Recovery of Heavy Oils Using Vapourized Hydrocarbon Solvents: Further Development of the Vapex Process,” Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Jun. v. 32, No. 6, pp. 56-62. |
Cuthiell, D. et al. (2003) “Investigation of the VAPEX Process Using CT Scanning and Numerical Simulation,” Jrnl. of Canadian Petroleum Tech., v. 42.2, pp. 41-49. |
Cuthiell, D. et al. (2006) “Viscous Fingering Effects in Solvent Displacement of Heavy Oil,” Jrnl. of Canadian Petroleum Tech., v. 45.7, pp. 29-39. |
Gallant, R. J. et al. (1993) “Steaming and Operating Strategies at a Midlife CSS Operation,” SPE 25794, pp. 183-194. |
Gupta, S. et al. (2001) “Insights into Some Key Issues with Solvent Aided Process,” Petroleum Society-Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum, Paper No. 2001-126. |
Katz et al. (1959) “Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering,” McGraw-Hill, p. 212. |
Nasr, T. N. et al. (1991) “A Novel Scaled Physical Simulator for Horizontal Well Enhanced Oil Recovery,” Petroleum Society of CIM and CANMET, Paper No. 5. |
Rostami, B. et al. (2005) “Investigation of the Vapex Process in High-Pressure Fractured Heavy-Oil Reservoirs,” SPE 97766, Alberta, Canada. |
Sloan, Jr., E. D. (1998) “Clathrate Hydrate of Natural Gases,” 2nd ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, pp. 162, 170, 200-201, 269, 520. |
Turta, A. T. et al. (2004) “Overview of Short-Distance Oil Displacement Processes,” Jrnl. of Canadian Petroleum Tech., v. 43, pp. 29-38. |
Upreti, S. R. et al. (2007) “Vapor Extraction of Heavy Oil and Bitumen: A Review,” Energy & Fuels, v. 21, pp. 1562-1574. |
Vagnetti, R. et al. (2009) “Solvent Based Oil Recovery for In-Situ Upgrading of Heavy Oil,” www.netI.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/EP/ImprovedRec/42745SolventEOR.html |
Vogel, J. V. (1996) “How Solvent Vapors Can Improve Steam Floods,” World Oil, Nov. 1996, pp. 75-77. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110226471 A1 | Sep 2011 | US |