Physical and Numerical Modeling of SAGD Under New Well Configurations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2013-09-23 Physical and Numerical Modeling of SAGD Under New Well Configurations Tavallali, Mohammad Tavallali, M. (2013). Physical and Numerical Modeling of SAGD Under New Well Configurations (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/27348 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/1002 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Physical and Numerical Modeling of SAGD Under New Well Configurations by Mohammad Tavallali A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL & PETROLEUM ENGINEERING CALGARY, ALBERTA SEPTEMBER, 2013 © Mohammad Tavallali, 2013 ii ABSTRACT This research was aimed at investigating the effect of well configuration on SAGD performance and developing a methodology for optimizing the well configurations for different reservoir characteristics. The role of well configuration in determining the performance of SAGD operations was investigated with help of numerical and physical models. Since mid 1980’s, SAGD process feasibility has been field tested in many successful pilots and subsequently through several commercial projects in various bitumen and heavy oil reservoirs. Although SAGD has been demonstrated to be technically successful and economically viable, it still remains very energy intensive, extremely sensitive to geological and operational conditions, and an expensive oil recovery mechanism. Well configuration is one of the major factors which affects SAGD performance and requires greater consideration for process optimization. Several well patterns were numerically examined for Athabasca, Cold Lake and Lloydminster type of reservoirs. Numerical modeling was carried out using a commercial fully implicit thermal reservoir simulator, Computer Modeling Group (CMG) STARS. For each reservoir, one or two promising well patterns were selected for further evaluations in the 3-D physical model or future field pilots. Three well patterns including the Classic SAGD pattern, Reverse Horizontal Injector, and Inclined Injector, of which the last two emerged as most promising in the numerical study, were examined in a 3-D physical model for Athabasca and Cold Lake reservoirs. The physical model used in this study was a rectangular model that was designed based on the available dimensional analysis for a SAGD type of recovery mechanism. Two types of bitumen representing the Athabasca and Cold Lake reservoirs were used in the experiments. A total of seven physical model experiments were conducted, four of which used the classic two parallel horizontal wells configuration, which were considered the base case tests. Two experiments used the Reverse Horizontal Injector pattern and the last experiment tested the Inclined Injector pattern. The suggested well patterns provided operational and economical enhancement to the SAGD process over the standard well iii configuration and this research strongly suggests that both of them should be examined through field pilots in Athabasca/Cold Lake type of reservoirs. In order to develop further insight into the performance of different well patterns, the production profile of each experiment was history matched using CMG-STARS. Only the relative permeability curves, porosity, permeability, and the production constraint were changed to get the best match of the experimental results. Although it was possible to history match the production performance of these tests by changing the relative permeability curves, the need for considerable changes in relative permeability shows that the numerical model was not able capture the true hydrodynamic behavior of the modified well configurations. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It would not have been possible to complete this doctoral thesis without the help and support of the kind people around me, to only some of whom it is possible to give particular mention here. First and foremost, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Brij B. Maini and Dr. Thomas G. Harding for their generous guidance, encouragement, and support throughout the course of this study. This thesis would not have been possible without their unsurpassed knowledge and patience. I really feel privileged to have Dr Maini as my supervisor and Dr Harding as my Co-Supervisor during these years of study. I would like to extend my thanks to Mr. Paul Stanislav for his helpful technical support during performing the experiments. I owe my respectful gratitude to the official reviewers of this thesis, Dr. S.A. Mehta, Dr. M. Dong, Dr. G. Achari, and Dr. K. Asghari for their critically constructive comments, which saved me from many errors and definitely helped to improve the final manuscript. I would like to acknowledge all the administrative support of the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering during this research. I’m practically grateful for the support of Computer Modeling Group for providing unlimited CMG’s license and for their technical support. I must express my gratitude to Narges Bagheri, my best friend, for her continued support and encouragement during all of the ups and downs of my research. I would like to thank my friends, Bashir Busahmin, Cheewee Sia, Farshid Shayganpour, and Rohollah Hashemi for their support during my research. Finally, I wish to thank my dear parents for their patient love and permanent moral support. v DEDICATION To my parents, my sisters Marjan, Mozhgan, and Mozhdeh, and my best friend Narges vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... iv DEDICATIONS...................................................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi LIST OF SYMBOLES, ABBREVIATIONS, AND NUMENCLATURES .....................xx CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................2 1.2 Dimensional Analysis.............................................................................................9 1.3 Factors Affecting SAGD Performance.................................................................10 1.3.1 Reservoir Properties ....................................................................................10 1.3.1.1 Reservoir Depth ................................................................................10 1.3.1.2 Pay Thickness, Oil Saturation, Grain Size, and Porosity..................11 1.3.1.3 Permeability (kv, kh)..........................................................................11 1.3.1.4 Bitumen viscosity..............................................................................11 1.3.1.5 Heterogeneity....................................................................................11 1.3.1.6 Wettability.........................................................................................12 1.3.1.7 Water Leg..........................................................................................13 1.3.1.8 Gas Cap.............................................................................................13 1.3.2 Well Design.................................................................................................13 1.3.2.1 Completion........................................................................................13 1.3.2.2 Well Configuration ...........................................................................14 1.3.2.3 Well Pair Spacing .............................................................................14 1.3.2.4 Horizontal Well Length ....................................................................14 1.3.3 Operational Parameters ...............................................................................14 1.3.3.1 Pressure.............................................................................................14 1.3.3.2 Temperature ......................................................................................15 1.3.3.3 Pressure Difference between Injector and Producer.........................15 1.3.3.4 Subcool (Steam-trap control)............................................................15 1.3.3.5 Steam Additives................................................................................16 1.3.3.6 Non-Condensable Gas ......................................................................16 1.3.3.6 Wind Down.......................................................................................16