Heavy oil recovery efficiency using SAGD, SAGD with propane co-injection and STRIP-SAGD

Primary oil recovery methods in heavy oil basins generally extract 5-10% of the available resource, with the vast majority left in the ground and recoverable only through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) methods. Traditional EOR methods, such as SAGD and solvent-assisted SAGD, generate steam in surface f...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Computers & Chemical Engineering
Main Authors: Voskov, Denis, Zaydullin, Rustem, Lucia, Angelo
Format: Text
Language:unknown
Published: DigitalCommons@URI 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/che_facpubs/616
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.02.010
id ftunivrhodeislan:oai:digitalcommons.uri.edu:che_facpubs-1618
record_format openpolar
spelling ftunivrhodeislan:oai:digitalcommons.uri.edu:che_facpubs-1618 2023-07-30T04:03:32+02:00 Heavy oil recovery efficiency using SAGD, SAGD with propane co-injection and STRIP-SAGD Voskov, Denis Zaydullin, Rustem Lucia, Angelo 2016-05-08T07:00:00Z https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/che_facpubs/616 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.02.010 unknown DigitalCommons@URI https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/che_facpubs/616 doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.02.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.02.010 Chemical Engineering Faculty Publications text 2016 ftunivrhodeislan https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.02.010 2023-07-17T19:08:38Z Primary oil recovery methods in heavy oil basins generally extract 5-10% of the available resource, with the vast majority left in the ground and recoverable only through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) methods. Traditional EOR methods, such as SAGD and solvent-assisted SAGD, generate steam in surface facilities and inject it underground to mobilize the oil for production. However, these methods can have considerable energy losses that significantly impact process performance. In contrast, the Solvent Thermal Resource Innovation Process (STRIP) technology, which uses down hole combustion of methane to produce CO2 and steam, reduces the operating and capital costs of surface facilities, saving more than 50% of the energy typically required for thermal production. In this work, simulations of conventional SAGD, SAGD with a non-condensing solvent (propane), and STRIP-SAGD for a typical bitumen reservoir in the Fort McMurray region in Alberta, Canada were performed using the combined software system ADGPRS/GFLASH. SAGD simulations used steam injection with a quality of 0.8 while STRIP simulations injected a vapor-liquid mixture with a quality of 0.8. Furthermore, both solvent-based EOR methods required longer operation periods than conventional SAGD to recover a similar amount of oil. However, when compared on the basis of cumulative oil produced for the same overall energy input, it is shown that STRIP-SAGD recovered more oil per kJ of energy input to the reservoir than either SAGD or SAGD with propane co-injection. Text Fort McMurray University of Rhode Island: DigitalCommons@URI Canada Fort McMurray Computers & Chemical Engineering 88 115 125
institution Open Polar
collection University of Rhode Island: DigitalCommons@URI
op_collection_id ftunivrhodeislan
language unknown
description Primary oil recovery methods in heavy oil basins generally extract 5-10% of the available resource, with the vast majority left in the ground and recoverable only through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) methods. Traditional EOR methods, such as SAGD and solvent-assisted SAGD, generate steam in surface facilities and inject it underground to mobilize the oil for production. However, these methods can have considerable energy losses that significantly impact process performance. In contrast, the Solvent Thermal Resource Innovation Process (STRIP) technology, which uses down hole combustion of methane to produce CO2 and steam, reduces the operating and capital costs of surface facilities, saving more than 50% of the energy typically required for thermal production. In this work, simulations of conventional SAGD, SAGD with a non-condensing solvent (propane), and STRIP-SAGD for a typical bitumen reservoir in the Fort McMurray region in Alberta, Canada were performed using the combined software system ADGPRS/GFLASH. SAGD simulations used steam injection with a quality of 0.8 while STRIP simulations injected a vapor-liquid mixture with a quality of 0.8. Furthermore, both solvent-based EOR methods required longer operation periods than conventional SAGD to recover a similar amount of oil. However, when compared on the basis of cumulative oil produced for the same overall energy input, it is shown that STRIP-SAGD recovered more oil per kJ of energy input to the reservoir than either SAGD or SAGD with propane co-injection.
format Text
author Voskov, Denis
Zaydullin, Rustem
Lucia, Angelo
spellingShingle Voskov, Denis
Zaydullin, Rustem
Lucia, Angelo
Heavy oil recovery efficiency using SAGD, SAGD with propane co-injection and STRIP-SAGD
author_facet Voskov, Denis
Zaydullin, Rustem
Lucia, Angelo
author_sort Voskov, Denis
title Heavy oil recovery efficiency using SAGD, SAGD with propane co-injection and STRIP-SAGD
title_short Heavy oil recovery efficiency using SAGD, SAGD with propane co-injection and STRIP-SAGD
title_full Heavy oil recovery efficiency using SAGD, SAGD with propane co-injection and STRIP-SAGD
title_fullStr Heavy oil recovery efficiency using SAGD, SAGD with propane co-injection and STRIP-SAGD
title_full_unstemmed Heavy oil recovery efficiency using SAGD, SAGD with propane co-injection and STRIP-SAGD
title_sort heavy oil recovery efficiency using sagd, sagd with propane co-injection and strip-sagd
publisher DigitalCommons@URI
publishDate 2016
url https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/che_facpubs/616
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.02.010
geographic Canada
Fort McMurray
geographic_facet Canada
Fort McMurray
genre Fort McMurray
genre_facet Fort McMurray
op_source Chemical Engineering Faculty Publications
op_relation https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/che_facpubs/616
doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.02.010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.02.010
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.02.010
container_title Computers & Chemical Engineering
container_volume 88
container_start_page 115
op_container_end_page 125
_version_ 1772814559736758272