Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Sand production and foamy oil flow are the two key factors
contributing to successes in cold flow production in Alberta and
Saskatchewan. However, the two mechanisms have been studied
and treated separately as geomechanics and multiphase flow
problems, respectively. This paper describes special experiments
that were designed to combine these two processes, and conducted to study their interaction. The experiments involved flow
of heavy oil with no dissolved gas (dead oil) and heavy oil with
dissolved gas (live oil) in natural, intact heavy oil sand cores. It
was found that gas nucleation in heavy oil is the major factor in
causing the initiation of sand production in oil sand. This finding
is consistent with field observations. A mathematical framework
for sand production in heavy oil reservoirs was developed based
on the experiments observations. This model includes the
effects of geomechanics and gas exsolution phenomena such as
strength of oil sand, stress distribution in the reservoir, solution
gas diffusion, foamy oil gas, and fluid phase properties.
Introduction
Sand production and foamy oil flow are interrelated mechanisms in primary production (cold production) of heavy oil reservoirs in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Massive sand production
could cause excessive deformation in oil sands and the overburden, resulting in detrimental effects on the wells and production
facilities. However, sand control measures tend to reduce the oil
production rate. Numerical studies(1-4) have been conducted to
predict sand production in heavy oil reservoirs. However, limited
experimental work has been performed to study the sand production in oil sand. Tremblay et al.(5, 6) used a computer tomography
imaging technique to examine the sand production process in
sandpack columns using dead oil injected at a constant rate. They
observed that a channel-like cavity was developed and evolved
under a critical flow pressure gradient. However, there is no
reported experimental study on sand production using natural oil
sand cores and live heavy oil. The main objective of this paper is
to investigate the effects of bitumen, oil sand interlocked structure, pressure gradient, and gas exsolution on the sand production
near a perforation in a heavy oil reservoir. The first part of this
paper describes the testing material, testing equipment, test details
and results. The second part focuses on the interpretation and
analysis of the test results and field observations, followed by
conclusions. Details of the mathematical models used in the
analysis of the test results are presented in the Appendix.
PEER REVIEWED PAPER (REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
56
pressure of 850 kPa. Their test results indicated that the viscous
heavy oil did not act as a binder to hold the oil sand matrix.
exsolution.
walled cell and not subjected to a controlled confining stress.
Thus, the sand production in the test series of the present study
was caused by the sand yielding due to stress failure, rather than
the fluid flow pressure gradient as detected by Tremblay et al.(5)
In this test series, the bitumen was removed from the oil sand
specimen to eliminate the effect of bitumen as a binding material
on the sand production, and to promote single fluid phase flow. A
small amount of sand was produced under water injection of a rate
of 1 l/min. The measured pressure gradient across the specimen
length was about 8.9 MPa/m. Wong et al.(1) developed an analytical solution relating to the critical pressure gradient, dp/dr, destabilizing the sand arch around a cavity by shear failure:
'
dp
= Nc cot(45o )
dr
2
.....................................................................(1)
( So )
+ o ( So ) + o
=0
t
t
t
............................................(2)
pg =
RT
GOR
22.4
RT S g
p
+
G
OR
pb
22.4 1 S g
.............................................(3)
in oil sand.
in oil sand.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the sand production
experiments:
The sand production in reconstituted oil sandpacks is caused
by stress-induced yielding rather than the fluid flow pressure
gradient.
The interlocked structure of natural oil sand provides a high
shear resistance against the seepage force generated by the
fluid flow. However, the oil sand is weak in resisting tensile
failure under gas exsolution.
Solution gas evolved at the pressure state just below the bubble point could induce negative effective stresses in oil sand
at unsupported cavities or unscreened perforations. This
unravels the oil sand interlocked structure by tensile failure
or parting, resulting in massive sand production.
Acknowledgements
This research investigation was funded through an NSERCImperial Oil CRD Research Grant. Assistance provided by Bill
Barr was appreciated.
NOMENCLATURE
c
cf
ce
d
D
GOR
krg
60
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
cohesion
fluid compressibility
matrix compressibility
average diameter of bubbles
diffusion coefficient of dissolved gas solute
gas-oil ratio
relative permeability of gas
kro
k
N
n
=
=
=
=
p
pg
pb
po
r
R
So
Sg
T
o
g
dg
o
r
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
REFERENCES
1. WONG, R.C.K., SAMIEH, A.M., and KUHLEMEYER, R., Oil
Sand Strength Parameters at Low Effective StressesIts Effects on
Sand Production; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol.
30, pp. 44-50, 1994.
2. GEILIKMAN, M.B., DUSSEAULT, M.B., and DULLIEN, F.A.L.,
Sand Production and Yield Propagation Around Wellbores;
Petroleum Society paper 94-89 presented at the Annual Technical
Conference, Calgary, AB, June 12 15, 1994.
3. GEILIKMAN, M.B., DUSSEAULT, M.B., and DULLIEN, F.A.L.,
Dynamic Effects of Foamy Fluid Flow in Sand Production
Instability; paper SPE 30251 presented at the International Heavy
Oil Symposium, Calgary, AB, June 19 21, 1995.
4. FUNG, L. and WONG, R.C.K., Modelling of Cavity Stability and
Sand Production in Heavy-Oil Reservoirs; Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 35, pp. 46-52, 1996.
5. TREMBLAY, B., SEDGWICK, G., and FORSHNER, K., Imaging
of Sand Production in Horizontal Pack by X-Ray Computed
Tomography; SPE Formation Evaluation, pp. 94-98, June 1996.
6. TREMBLAY, B., SEDGWICK, G., and FORSHNER, K.,
Simulation of Cold Production in Heavy Oil Reservoirs: Wormhole
Dynamics; SPE Reservoir Engineering, pp. 110-117, May 1997.
7. WONG, R.C.K. and LEUNG, K.C., Borehole Stability in Oil Sand
Under Drilling; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 41,
pp. 55-60, 2002.
8. SHARPE, J.A., SHINDE, S.B., and WONG, R.C.K., Cold Lake
Borehole Mining; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol.
36, pp. 58-63, 1997.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Gas Phase
Gas phase exists as free gas in bubbles and dissolved gas solute
in oil. Thus, the mass conservation equation of the gas phase is
given as:
[(
d S g g + dg So
kk rg
kk
dg ro po + g
p g =
dt
o
g
)]
.............................(A4)
where g and dg are average free gas and dissolved gas densities;
krg is gas relative permeability; pg is gas pressure; and, Sg is gas
saturation. In Equation (A4), dg is a boundary condition-dependent parameter that is governed by the gas exsolution process, i.e.,
mass diffusion of dissolved gas in the oil phase to the bubbles of
free gas(11, 12).
Equations (A1) to (A4) provide a mathematical framework for
the coupled stress-foamy oil flow process around a spherical cavity in oil sands. Total radial and tangential stresses, oil pressure
and oil saturation are the four dependent variables. Gas pressure
can be related to oil pressure using the capillary pressure curve.
Gas and oil saturations are totaled to unity. The average dissolved
gas density is dependent on gas pressure through Henrys law. It
can be seen that all four variables appear in each of the four governing equations. Solutions to such fully coupled systems of equations are very complex and difficult. Since sand production is
likely to occur at the periphery of the cavity, there has been an
attempt to make some reasonable assumptions in this paper to
make the solution tractable.
ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, Sand Production
in Oil Sand Under Heavy Oil Foamy Flow (2002-256) first presented at
the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (the 53 rd Annual
Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society) June 11-13, 2002, in
Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review December 17, 2001; editorial comments sent to the author(s) November 19, 2002; revised manuscript received December 24, 2002; paper approved for pre-press
December 23, 2002, final approval February 27, 2003.
Authors Biography
d
+2 r = 0
dr
r
............................................................................(A2)
where r and are total radial and tangential stresses, respectively; r and are radial and tangential strains, respectively; and, r is
the radial distance. The strains can be expressed in terms of total
radial and tangential stresses, fluid (oil) pressure po and gas pressure pg, using effective stress-strain constitutive laws.
..............................................................(A3)
where
d oSo
( So )
= ( So ) o + o ( So ) + o
dt
t
t
t ;
is oil density; k and kr are absolute and relative permeability
values; is porosity; and, S is oil saturation. In Equation
(A3), oil pressure, gas pressure, and total stresses are implicitly
embedded.
March 2003, Volume 42, No. 3
61