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
 Does Heavy Oil Recovery Need Steam?

Johan van Dorp

35 years with Shell Group - Retired Oct 2016

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
2
OUTLINE

• GLOBAL HEAVY OIL & BITUMEN

• THE HEAVY OIL RECOVERY CHALLENGE
• NEW TECHNOLOGIES & DEVELOPMENT
OPTIONS
• MODELLING CHALLENGES

3
 WORLD HEAVY OIL – RESOURCE BASE (IN PLACE)

~ 10 trillion bbls STOIIP

Includes technically and economically challenged in-place resources (e.g. low So, thin
beds, low net-to-gross, low permeability, immobile oil).
Worldwide HO production is ±10 mln bbl/day (<0.1% p.a. depletion rate), of which 2
mln bbl/day from thermal (steam based) projects (2%-4% per annum depletion). 4
 WORLD HEAVY OIL – THERMAL PRODUCTION (2014)

(in planning
1,750 kbpd)

Total: 2 million Bopd

Note: Excludes production from surface mining in Canada (1,050 kbpd)
Sources:
- Hart Energy
- Oil Sands Review
Note: Heavy Oil = API < 18 (Hart E&P) 5
Heavy Oil Production - It’s All About the Viscosity

100,000 Heavy Oil and

10,000
Bitumen
viscosity varies
1,000 vertically and
100
laterally.

Usually limited
m (cP)

10

data
1
0 50 100 T (deg
150 C) 200 250 300 350

MUST REDUCE HEAT Need an accurate

fluid model to design
VISCOSITY TO DILUTE and optimize
PRODUCE
processes
UPGRADE
Ref. Adams et al., University of Calgary, 2008
Larter & Adams, JCPT Jan 2008 V47 #1 6
THERMAL PROCESS EFFICIENCY-CASE FOR ACTION IN LOW CO2 WORLD

250
Energy Break-Even Thermal EOR is Energy Intensive
200  Heat mostly rock (~90% of mass)

CO2 intensity (kg/bo)

Key Efficiency Factors
Thermal Input

150

100  Reservoir Pressure (determines steam T)

 Resource Richness (14 %wt  20% So.f)
50  Reservoir Thickness
0 CO2 Footprint > 40 kg/bbl oil (avg. US
0 20 40 60 80 100
Reservoir Pressure (bar) refinery intake)
250 250

200 200

CO2 intensity (kg/bo)

CO2 intensity (kg/bo)

Thermal Input
Thermal Input

150 150

100 100 HO Project

50 50

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 10 20 30
Reservoir Richness So.phi Reservoir Thickness (m) 7
THERMAL PROCESS EFFICIENCY-CASE FOR ACTION IN LOW CO2 WORLD

250
Energy Break-Even Thermal EOR is Energy Intensive
200  Heat mostly rock

CO2 intensity (kg/bo)

Key Efficiency Factors
Thermal Input

150

100  Reservoir Pressure

 Resource Richness
50  Reservoir Thickness
0 CO2 Footprint > 40 kg/bbl oil
0 20 40 60 80 100
Reservoir Pressure (bar)
250 Focus on: 250

200 200
• Recovery Technologies

CO2 intensity (kg/bo)

CO2 intensity (kg/bo)

− Incremental
150 Improvements
Thermal Input
Thermal Input

150

100 − Step Change

100
Improvements
50 50

0 • Process Improvements
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 10 − Carbon
20 30 Capture & Storage,
Reservoir Richness So.phi Reservoir Thickness (m)
− Solar Steam 8
EOR Technology Maturity – Application to Heavy Oil

Commercial Technology
Steam (SF, CSS, SAGD)
Process Miscible
Maturity Steam additives (Foam, Solvents)
Polymer Flooding
Thermal GOGD
In-Situ Combustion / HPAI
In Testing Alkaline Surfactant Polymer
Low Salinity Waterflooding
In-situ Upgrading Process
Contaminated / Acid Gas inj.
Joule Heating / EM Heating
VAPEX / Condensing Pure Solvent
Low Maturity
Novel Solvents
Faint colour = N/A for HO
Cyclic Solvents

Foam Underlined = Lower

Microbial Energy

Time
9
R&D RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES – HEAVY OIL & BITUMEN
R&D Focus
 Reduce CO2 footprint of Heavy Oil and Bitumen recovery
 Unlock stranded Assets
 Thin reservoirs / Low quality reservoirs
 Fractured Carbonates Mature
Breakthrough Improvements Incremental Improvements
1. Pure solvents (VAPEX & 4. Solvent assisted (like
improvements) ES-SAGD)
2. Electro Magnetic heating  Steam foam
& hybrids (3 types)  Hybrids (e.g. with In-
3. Polymer situ combustion)
 Surfactants  In-Situ upgrading
10
PURE SOLVENTS

Solvent: “A usually liquid substance capable of dissolving or

dispersing one or more other substances”

Dissolve: “To mix with a liquid and become part of the liquid”

Examples of Pure Solvents (Single component):

Propane
Butane
Pentane P
Chloroform
Ether L
Toluene V
Carbon di-sulfide
Di-chloromethane T
Etc.

11
HOW CAN VAPEX BE IMPROVED?

Unsuccessful VAPEX Field  Vapour solvent

Pilots diffusion into viscous
 e.g. Dover HO / bitumen is slow:

Tabs
D
mbit rsolv

 Methane & NCG

(solution gas)
“poisons” the process
12
 SOLVENT EXTRACTION USING LIQUID SOLVENT IS FAST
1E-3
 Bitumen diffusion into liquid
m solv rbit 
Total fluid flux
solvent is fast: D  Tabs 1E-4 Bitumen flux

 Convective dispersion refreshes

1E-5

Flux [ kg/ m2.s ]

solvent front 1E-6

1E+6 1E-7 Gravity

Drainage
1E+5 1E-8
Fluxes
1E-9
Mass Flux [ g/m2.h ]

1E+4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1E+3 Solvent mass fraction
Sand Packs
1E+2 NEI Sand Pack,2008
Hele Shaw Solvent is a pure
1E+1 Nsolv, prediction
VAPEX paraffinic H.C.
outliers
1E+0
VAPEX, prediction (e.g, C3, C4 or C5)
1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 1E+7
m/k.f [ cP/Darcy ]
13
Ref. Nenniger PETSOC 2008-139
 TECHNOLOGY – CONDENSING SOLVENTS

Technology 100
Solvent at 40-60ºC instead of Steam 80 STEAM

CO2 (kg/bbl oil)

Fast extraction at Solvent interface 60
Upgraded product (less asphaltenes) 40

Small inventory (vapour) 20 Condensing

Solvent
Business Impact
0
0 100 200 300

(comparison with Steam) Extraction Temperature (°C)

5x lower energy & GHG

Faster than SAGD, similar R.F.
50% lower Capex: (no water, no water use)
Applicable to low So, thinner resource (~5 m)
Commercialisation
Pilot & Demonstration by Technology Providers
Ref. N-solv website 14
 SOLVENT EXTRACTION – FIELD TRIALS

 Nsolv pilot: Bitumen Extraction  Imperial: Cyclic Solvent Pilot

Solvent Technology

 SAGD Well Configuration  Reservoir Conditions 31 Bar / 19 C

 Operate 30-50 °C above Treservoir  Propane + diluent
 Faster than Steam Extraction  100,000 to 200,000 bbl/well; 5 cycles
 Produce Upgraded Product  Claim to have solution to manage
unstable displacement
Ref. AER website, N-solv website
IPTC 18214 Boone et.al 15
ELECTRIC HEATING

16
FORMATION ELECTRICAL HEATING – 4 PROCESSES

Resistive – IUP process (Shell) Electro-thermal – (ET Energy)

GE ~ Hz GE ~ Hz

Overburden Overburden
Production
well

Reservoir Reservoir
HEATING ELEMENT
Current
Electrode Electrode
Heating by Thermal Conduction Deep Heating by Ohmic Heating
of Formation Water
Induction – (Siemens) High Frequency (RF) – (Harris)
GHF ~ kHz GHF ~ MHz

Overburden Overburden

Reservoir Reservoir
CABLE LOOP ANTENNA

Heating by Eddy Currents in Di-Electric Heating of Formation

Formation Water where Formation Water
has Evaporated 17
Process – Formation “Joule” Heating (50-60 Hz)
ET Energy Vertical Well Pilot success (2011)
 Drill electrodes wells (around 25 m spacing)
 Apply e-power and pre-heat to 60-110 C
 1-2 years at 5A/m, Uniform Heating
 Produce oil by thermal expansion (5-10% OIP)
 Produce oil by (Foamy) Solution Gas Drive (15-25% OIP)
 Produce oil by EOR displacement method
-V
Electrical
Power
+V

Technology Challenges:
Electrode • Electrode Design not Mature
• Cooling of Electrode may be required
• Current Uniformity along Electrode
Electrode

McGee JCPT Jan 2007, V46 #1

18
SPE 117470 McGee,
POLYMER FOR HEAVY OIL

19
Polymer for Heavy Oil EOR
Reduce Waterflood Mobility Ratio by increasing Viscosity of
Displacing Water (HPAM – Hydrolized PolyAcrylaMide)
 Mitigates Heterogeneity, Stabilises Injection Conformance

Polymer applications for typical Heavy Oil (benign conditions):

 Low Temperature T < 70-80 C
 Low Salinity environment <10,000 ppm TDS
 Medium/High Permeability K > 50 mD
 Polymers available with demonstrated stability at low cost and
ease of handling, i.e. HPAM
 Low/Medium Viscosity < 100 cP

CNRL & Cenovus apply polymer at large scale in Pelican Lake /

Brintnell field (next slide). They do not target stable displacement.

Research: increase flooding temperature to ~70C instead of 20C

20
POLYMER FOR HEAVY OIL & BITUMEN (CNRL – BRINTNEL)

Formation: Whabasca
Thickness: 3-6 m
Well Length (I&P): 1500 m+
Live Oil Viscosity: 900 cP
Polymer Viscosity: 25 cP
Breakthrough polymer: 6 cP in 1.5 y

WaterFlood comparison:
Mobility Ratio: 250 10
Microscopic U.R.@ BT: 21%  50%

0.7
0.6
Microscopic Recovery

0.5
BTp
0.4
Polymer 0.3
Conversion 0.2 BTw Np (WaterFlood)
0.1
Np (Polymer)
0
Ref. AER public website
SPE 165234 Delamaide
0 0.5 PV Inj. 1 1.5 21
STEAM + SOLVENTS

22
 EXPANDING SOLVENT-SAGD INDUSTRY MOMENTUM
60% Bitumen Uplift (%) Finished, ongoing and planned
SOR Improvement (%)
30% ES-SAGD field tests & LASER CL SAP
Butane
0% Great Divide Algar SAGD+ Germain
Condensate SC-SAGD 4WPs

Firebag - 2days Long Lake SCI

Diluent Pad13 2WPs

GD Algar SAGD+
Cold Lake LASER - Commercial Condensate Peace River
Condensate ~ 240 wells Steam Drive
Pad19 diluent
Christina Lake = CL CL CondenSAP
SAP Condensate 5wt%

Firebag Jackfish
Sour naphtha multiple WPs
CL SAP
Senlac SAP Long Lake Butane Surmont E-SAGD
Butane NGL mix; Ops.Upsets
Cold Lake
Cold Lake LASER CL SAP SA-SAGD Diluent Leismer SCIP
Condensate Chamber merged Diluent

Nasr JCPT Jan 2003 V42 #1

Leaute JCPT Sep 2007 V46 #9 Success / Fail / Ongoing 23
 Viscosity Model to Accurately Fit Lab Data
Data & model on Bitumen blended with condensate

Viscosity mixing rules

Amix based
Amix on 2 ( A1  A2 ) 12
w1wWalther
ideal

mix  w1 w2 ( B1  B2 ) 12
Bmix  B relationship
ideal

SPE-160314 Yarranton et.al. M/AARD=Max/Avg Absolute value Relative Deviation 24

ES-SAGD RECOVERY MECHANISM

25
ES-SAGD TIMING OF DILUENT SLUG ADDITION (10%WT)
100% -100%
Modelling Results
80% -80%

Recovery
Bitumen-SAGD

Bitumen
60% -60%
40% -40% Bitumen-Late Slug
20% -20% Bitumen-Early Slug
0% 0%
Abandon @ OSR=0.13
-20% 20%
-40% 40% Late Slug (wt%)
Diluent
Recovery
Solvent

-60% 60% Early Slug (wt%)

Diluent
Diluent

-80% 80% Solvent R.F.-Late Slug

-100% 100%
0 5 10 15 20 25 Solvent R.F.-Early Slug
Year

cOSR Net Solvent Efficiency R.F. Diluent U.R. Bitumen

(v/v) (Voil / V solvent retained) (%) (%)
SAGD 0.21 79
Late Slug 0.28 6.6 93 82
Early Slug 0.33 6.1 95 83 26
Reservoir Modelling

27
 Reservoir Simulation Challenges
 Use of 9-pt scheme in Dynamic
LGR (local grid refinement)

 Unstructured Grids to reduce

orientation effects
 Convective dispersion as a
mixing mechanism in miscible
displacement
 Very thin solvent interfaces  Include Maxwell’s

 Diffusion dependent on (T, c); Electromagnetic Equations in

diffusive flux between phases Thermal Reservoir Simulator
SPE 141711 Batenburg et.al. 28
 CONCLUSIONS
 Breakthrough technologies and incremental improvements to steam
injection result in significant environmental footprint (CO2) reductions
 Steam Recovery Processes are here to stay, but with 30%-50% efficiency
improvements (adding solvents or foam to the steam)
 Promising technologies aim at lower reservoir operating temperatures to 40-100
°C (polymer flooding; pure solvent extraction; electric heating)

 Some of these technologies are mature and can be selected

 Pure Solvent Extraction and Electrical heating are being demonstrated.

 Modelling the solvent processes and electric heating processes require

significant enhancements to modelling technology

 Vast Heavy Oil resources worldwide (10,000 billion Bbls), but

underdeveloped
 Developments are economically challenged without innovative solutions
29
Your Feedback is Important
Enter your section in the DL Evaluation Contest by
completing the evaluation form for this presentation
Visit SPE.org/dl

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl 30
 QUESTIONS ?
Abbreviations Recovery Processes
CNRL = Canadian natural resources Ltd. CSS = cyclic steam stimulation
CWE = cold water equivalent ES-SAGD= expanding solvent SAGD
EM = electromagnetic heating GOGD = gas-oil gravity drainage
EOR = enhanced oil recovery HPAI = high pressure air injection
GHG = green house gas IUP = in-situ upgrading process
H.C. = hydrocarbon LASER = liquid addition to steam to
HO = heavy oil enhance recovery
HPAM = Hydrolized Poly AcrylaMide SA-SAGD= solvent aided SAGD
NCG = non condensable gas SAGD = steam assisted gravity
NGL = natural gas liquids drainage
OSR = oil – steam ratio (v/v) SAP = solvent aided process
RF = radio frequency SC-SAGD= solvent cyclic SAGD
SOR = steam – oil ratio SCIP = solvent co-injection pilot
TDS = total dissolved solids SF = steam flooding
U.R. = ultimate recovery VAPEX = vapour assisted petroleum
WP = well pair (in SAGD) extraction

An e-list with ±100 literature references with local SPE section 31

EFFECT OF SOLVENT ADDITION IN HO DISPLACEMENT
1
0.9 solvent
0.8 components
H2O and
(oil phase)
 Viscosity reduction
0.7 solvent
0.6 (gas phase)

Saturation (-)
 Lower Residual Sor 0.5
bitumen
0.4 components
 Enhanced gas drive 0.3 (oil phase)
0.2 H2O
 Increased sweep 0.1 (water phase)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (m)
Sw So_bit So_slvt Sg_H2O Sg_bit Sg_slvt

Business impact:
 Production acceleration and ultimate recovery increase
 Higher thermal efficiency (through reduced steam
injection)
32
STEAM FOAM

33
R&D RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES – HEAVY OIL & BITUMEN
R&D Focus
 Reduce CO2 footprint of Heavy Oil and Bitumen recovery
 Unlock stranded Assets
 Thin reservoirs / Low quality reservoirs
 Fractured Carbonates Mature
Breakthrough Improvements Incremental Improvements
1. Pure solvents (VAPEX & 4. Solvent assisted (like
improvements) ES-SAGD)
2. Electro Magnetic heating 5. Steam foam
& hybrids (3 types)  Hybrids (e.g. with In-
3. Polymer situ combustion)
 Surfactants  In-Situ upgrading
34
 STEAM-FOAM PROCESS: BACKGROUND
Goal:
Lower
Steam
Production Vertical
Break
Cum
Sweep
 Viscosify steam with Foam to reduce
Through
Oil steam Break Through and Improve OSR
 Improve Sweep & Recovery by reducing
gravity override and viscous fingering
PV steam

Hirasaki (SPE 19505)

Patzek (SPE 17380) 35
STEAM-FOAM PROCESS – ‘70s & ‘80s PROJECT RESULTS

Technology is Deployable, with many successful

pilots, but forgotten during the low-oil-price years!
Company Project DU.R. Prior cOSR Foam cOSR Total $/bbl
Shell Mecca - Kern Rvr 14% 0.10 0.22 -1.2
Shell Bishop - Kern Rvr 8.50% 0.14 0.34 6.4
Shell PRISP - Peace Rvr - - - #N/A
Witmer B2-3
Corco - 0.21 0.36 -0.9
Kern Front
CLD Midway-SunSet - 0.15 0.40 -4.5
Corco-St SUPRI - Kern Rvr - 0.50 0.75 8.7
Pilot 1
Amoco - 0.18 0.23 1.2
Winkelman Dome
Chevron 15A - Midway-Sunset - 0.25 0.50 -2.1
Chevron 26C - Midway-Sunset - 0.13 0.45 -5.3
Surfactants: Alpha Olefin Sulfonate, Linear Toluene S., Alkyl T.S. (1-3 $/kg)
Concentration: 0.5%wt (Shell & Chevron) to 40%wt (Corco) 36
FOAM PROCESS & TECHNICAL CHALLENGES

Base improvement assumptions:

• 17% increase in reserves (DU.R. 8%)

• 40% improvement in OSR

Technology Challenges
• Identify Foaming Surfactant with high temperature stability
& low adsorption
• Select Steam Quality with sufficient liquid phase for foaming
• Select surfactant concentration
• Add Non-Condensible-Gas to prolong foam stability
37
GROSMONT

38
 HOW TO UNLOCK GROSMONT
• Grosmont Carbonate Platform extends
from central Alberta into Northwest
Territories
• Approximately 100,000 km2 in areal
extent, 200 km wide and 500 km long

Grosmont • Comparable in size to largest of the

Platform modern day Bahama Banks
 Contains about 450 bbbl HO in-place
 1 mln centiPoise
 Densely Fractured Vuggy Dolomite

Bahama Banks

Edmunds JCPT Sep 2009, V48 #9 39

 GROSMONT RECOVERY OPTIONS
 Thermal GOGD (commercial in Qarn Alam, successful Grosmont pilots
by Laricina)
 Thermal GOGD + Solvents Thermal GOGD
 In-situ Upgrading Process O i l a n d W a te r S te a m Gas

 Other

M a t ri x F r a c t u re
M a tr ix F r a c tu r e p r e s s u re p r e s s u re

F l u id
p o te n t ia l
H e ig h t

G as O il
Fracture oil rim
g r a d ie n t g r a d ie n t
h
o u t f lo w
P r e s s u re

• Steam Vapour fills fractures effectively delivering heat to the

oil in the matrix by conduction – control: Fracture spacing (L)
• Heat results in early oil expansion
• Heat reduces oil viscosity to drain – control: Oil mobility (k/m)o
SPE 169031 Niz-Vlasquez 40
CONCLUSIONS
 Breakthrough technologies and incremental improvements to steam
injection result in significant environmental footprint (CO2) reductions
 Steam Recovery Processes are here to stay, but with 30%-50% efficiency
improvements (adding solvents or foam to the steam)
 Promising technologies aim at lower reservoir operating temperatures to 40-100
°C (polymer flooding; pure solvent extraction; electric heating)

 Some of these technologies are mature and can be selected

 Pure Solvent Extraction and Electrical heating are being demonstrated.

 Developing Grosmont Carbonate platform is a special challenge

 Modelling the solvent processes and electric heating processes require

significant enhancements to modelling technology

 Vast Heavy Oil resources worldwide (10 trillion Bbls), but underdeveloped
 Developments are economically challenged without innovative solutions 41
 INTRODUCTION – JOHAN VAN DORP

Rijks Universiteit Utrecht – experimental physics 1980

Shell Petroleum Engineer since 1981
Principal Technical Expert thermal EOR since 2008
Worked on all thermal projects in the Shell Group
42
CANADIAN BITUMEN MAP – 1800 BILLION BARRELS IN-PLACE…

Athabasca
McMurray sst
1300 bbbl

Peace River
Bluesky sst
130 bbbl

Cold Lake
Clearwater sst
200 bbbl
Grosmont
Carbonate
Platform 450 bbbl
43