1887

Abstract

Summary

Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) provides many advantages compared to alternate thermal recovery methods for bitumen recovery. Nowadays, most of researchers believe that the gravity mechanism is the main drive in SAGD recovery, ignoring the injector-producer pressure difference, which makes the field prediction deviate from reality. To tackle this problem, this paper makes further investigation on the injector-producer pressure difference. A series of 2D numerical simulations are conducted on the basis of Mackay River reservoir in Canada to investigate on influence of injector-producer pressure difference. Meanwhile, a new mathematical model considering injector-producer pressure difference is established. The results indicate that when the injector-producer pressure difference exists, SAGD usually has better recovery. Pressure difference can effectively improve SAGD operating performance to achieve a high economic efficiency. More pressure difference doesn’t necessarily lead to better recovery, for when the pressure difference increases to some certain degrees, it will cause steam breakthrough. Pressure difference usually plays an important role at the beginning of SAGD recovery, therefore it is better for us to increase pressure difference at the steam rising stage and decrease pressure difference at the steam chamber expansion to avoid steam breakthrough, and finally to achieve a high economic efficiency.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700250
2017-04-24
2021-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AdegbesanK G.
    Reservoir Simulation Study of a Thermal Horizontal Well Pilot in the Cold Lake Oil Sands [J]. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 1992, 7(4):403–406.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ButlerR M, StephensD J.
    The Gravity Drainage of Steam-Heated Heavy Oil to Parallel Horizontal Wells [J]. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1981, 20(2):36–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ButlerR M.
    Rise of Interfering Steam Chambers [J]. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1987, 26(3):70–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ButlerR M, McnabG S, LoH Y.
    Theoretical Studies on the Gravity Drainage of Heavy Oil during In-Situ Steam Heating [J]. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 1981, 59(4):455–460.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. ButlerR M.
    A New Approach to the Modelling Of Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage [J]. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1985, 24(03):42–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ChenYuan Qian
    . Question of SAGD production rate formula for Butler’s double horizontal well [J]. Fault Block Oil & Gas Field, 2015, 22(4):472–475
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DasS K.
    Well Bore Hydraulics in a SAGD Well Pair[C]//SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2005.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. EdmundsN R.
    Investigation of SAGD Steam Trap Control in Two and Three Dimensions [J]. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 2000, 39(1):267–277.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Farouq-AliS.
    Is There Life After SAGD? [J]. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1997, 36(6):20–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. HuangS, XiongH, WeiS, et al.
    Physical simulation of the interlayer effect on SAGD production in mackay river oil sands[J]. Fuel, 2016, 183:373–385.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ItoY, SuzukiS.
    Numerical Simulation of the SAGD Process in the Hangingstone Oil Sands Reservoir [J]. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1996, 38(9):27–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LuoYanyan
    . Study on Flow Mechanism near Wellbore of Thermal Recovery Horizontal Well for Heavy Oil Reservoirs [D]. China university of petroleum, Beijing, 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. LawD, GolbeckH, NasrT, et al.
    Counter-current Aspect of the SAGD Process[J]. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 2000, 39(39): 41–47
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MozaffariS, NikookarM, EhsaniM R, et al.
    Numerical modeling of steam injection in heavy oil reservoirs[J]. Fuel, 2013, 112(3):185–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. OngT S, ButlerR M.
    Wellbore Flow Resistance In Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage[J]. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1990, 29(6):49–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. RogerButler
    , Thermal recovery of oil and bitumen [M], Alberta: Prentice-Hall, 1991; 214–215.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. ReisJ C.
    A Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Model for Tar Sands: Linear Geometry [M]. Petroleum Society of Canada, 1992.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. A Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage Model for Tar Sands: Radial Geometry [J]. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1993, 32(8):43–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. WeiS, ChengL, HuangW, et al.
    Prediction for steam chamber development and production performance in SAGD process[J]. Journal of Natural Gas Science & Engineering, 2014, 19(7):303–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. WeiW, GatesI D.
    On the Relationship between Completion Design, Reservoir Characteristics, and Steam Conformance Achieved in Steam-based Recovery Processes such as SAGD[J]. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700250
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700250
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error