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...
Published in: | Computers & Chemical Engineering |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 |