Overview of Short-Distance Oil Displacement Processes

A.T. TURTA, A.K. SINGHAL

Petroleum Recovery Institute (PRI)/Alberta Research Council (ARC)

Abstract
With the advent of horizontal wells, a distinct change is tacitly taking place in our approach to improved recovery of heavy oil: from displacing mobilized oil in a flood pattern from injector to producer over long distances of the order of hundreds of metres, to short-distance oil displacement (SDOD) processes (typically over a few metres). Due to the high viscosity of oil, its displacement to a producer site located a long distance away is usually inefficient. In these cases, the required pressure drop may be very high, and/or the mobility ratio between injectant and oil exceedingly large. Either gravity override or very intensive channeling may take place, resulting in extremely low volumetric sweep efficiency and hence, generally marginal or poor economics. Using horizontal wells, travel distances for the mobilized oil to reach the producer can be shortened. SDOD processes are aimed at mobilizing oil and producing it immediately, via the shortest path, into a horizontal producer. SDOD processes can utilize horizontal producers and injectors, or combinations of horizontal producers and vertical injectors. Based on the displacement fronts position relative to the horizontal section of a producer, SDOD processes could be divided into two categories: 1. Those with a displacement front quasi-parallel to the horizontal producer. 2. Those with a displacement front quasi-perpendicular to the horizontal producer. While the first type of SDOD process uses two parallel horizontal wells (one for injection and the other one for production), the second type uses a vertical injector and a horizontal producer with the toe of the producer located in the proximity of the shoe of the injector. In the first type of process, production occurs throughout the entire horizontal section. In the second type, the swept zone extends and moves from the toe towards the heel, utilizing reduced sections of the horizontal well for production. Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) and Vapour Extraction (VAPEX) processes belong to the first type. Toe-ToHeel (TTH) displacement processes are of the second type. These TTH displacement processes can be applied in a non-thermal mode, such as Toe-To-Heel Waterflooding or a thermal mode such as THAI (Toe-To-Heel Air Injection) along with its variant, CAPRI, aimed at in situ oil upgrading. An analysis of all SDOD processes (SAGD, VAPEX, and TTH displacement processes) was performed, focusing on their relative merits in terms of override or underride due to gravity segregation, injectant channeling due to reservoir heterogeneity, and injectant/oil mobility ratio causing instabilities. These negative factors are very important in defining the efficiency of the

long-distance oil recovery techniques, but they are substantially less important during the SDOD processes. Therefore, in many situations, the efficiency of heavy oil exploitation via SDOD IOR/EOR processes is usually better than alternate recovery schemes. Finally, basic concepts behind different TTH displacement processes are examined in light of available laboratory and simulation results. Also, various aspects of SDOD process implementation in the field along with practical considerations are discussed.

Introduction
With the advent of horizontal wells, a new approach to improved recovery of heavy oil is becoming popular, from moving mobilized oil in a pattern or line drive flood over long distances (of the order of hundreds of metres) to short-distance oil displacement (SDOD) (typically over a few metres or tens of metres). In many situations, due to the high viscosity of oil, its displacement to producers located a long distance away from an injector is neither practical nor profitable. In these cases, if the oil reservoir consists of a thin and relatively homogeneous pay section and if no channeling/override (underride) develops, the required injection pressure may be too high (due to large pressure gradients). Therefore, such a process cannot sustain reasonable injection rates. However, in most cases, due to an exceedingly high injectant/ oil mobility ratio, gravity override/ underride of the injectant occurs. Gravity override/ underride or very intensive channeling could lead to extremely low volumetric sweep efficiency, poorly sustained oil rates, low recovery, and marginal or poor economics. Either way, in most heavy oil situations, longdistance oil displacement (LDOD) processes do not work.

FIGURE 1: Long-distance oil displacement waterflood case K1>>K2.

PEER REVIEWED PAPER (REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE) February 2004, Volume 43, No. 2 29

An example of LDOD is shown in Figure 1. The main features of LDOD processes are: Oil particles have to travel a long distance (from their original position up to the production well) before being produced; and, In a heterogeneous system (multiple layer system of different permeabilities), the tendency of preferential advancement of the displacement front is a function of the overall (integrated) flow resistance in every layer, from the injection well to the production well; the mobility ratio is crucial in intensifying or reducing this tendency (frontal instability), initiated by different permeabilities. Thus, in LDOD processes, performance depends on the distribution of properties (mainly permeability, viscosity, and density of the injectant and oil) all along the flow path, between the injection and production wells. In Figure 1, we consider a line drive with 400 m distance between injection and production rows, for a pay thickness of 20 m. Before being produced, an average oil particle needs to travel 200 m (0 m for the oil particle near the producer, and 400 m when located close to the injection well). If we can capture and produce this particle while it travels to a distance equal to the thickness of the formation, using this simplified schematic, we can say that the average travel distance is reduced from 200 m to an average of 10 m, i.e., by a factor of 20(1). The deterioration of performance of any LDOD process can occur due to: 1. Gravity segregation leading to overriding/ underriding of the injected fluid; 2. Rock heterogeneity, leading to channeling of the injectant; and, 3. Unfavourable mobility ratio (Mr) between the displacing/ displaced fluids. Mr= (Kr/)d/(Kr/)oil. While gravity segregation and heterogeneities can have a combined positive or negative effect, the unfavourable mobility ratio always has an adverse effect, and disproportionally increases the negative effect of the other two parametres. Therefore, the negative effects of rock heterogeneity and gravity segregation are aggravated when the viscosity of oil increases, as Mr becomes more unfavourable. Therefore, exploitation methods that mitigate these negative factors need to be developed. This aspect may not be very important for light oil reservoirs, but it is critical for heavy oil reservoirs. Almost all conventional floods are LDOD processes. In spite of being relatively inefficient, these are still economically acceptable when oil viscosity is low (<10 mPas), but the necessity to switch to SDOD becomes acute in heavy oil situations, especially in view of the growing popularity of horizontal wells. Rigorously speaking, for intermediate viscosity oils (100 to 3,000 mPas), displacement by gas or water is an unsteady and unstable process, because the mobility ratio between injectant and oil is very high. This means that over time, the distance between the two displacement fronts in layers 1 and 2 (with significant permeability contrast) becomes progressively larger (see Figure 1). This can be easily seen from the classical equations for the velocity of displacement front for the two layers(2-4), V1/*Sw and V2/*Sw, for the same pressure drop between injection and production wells. For the simplified case of piston-like displacement, these expressions are:

the rock, and oil viscosity distribution along the entire flow path between the vertical injector and the vertical producer. This is a very significant disadvantage and could be partially overcome when horizontal wells are used in an SDOD mode.

SDOD Processes
Historically, improved oil recovery (IOR) processes, applied in the LDOD mode, were based on either their ability to increase microscopic displacement efficiency (immiscible and miscible methods) in the invaded zone, or their ability to increase the sweep efficiency by suitably modifying the mobility ratio. During polymer flooding, an increase in viscosity of the injected water occurs in the invaded zone. However, for thermal methods, a decrease in viscosity occurs just ahead of the displacement front. For thermal methods, average oil viscosity is a weighted average of the unaffected oil (cold oil) and mobilized (heated) oil viscosity. It is this average which strongly influences the propagation of the displacement front in layers with different permeabilities. Unfortunately, this average is closer to unaffected oil viscosity, rather than heated oil viscosity, over much of the life of these projects. Consequently, because the heated oil is forced to flow through the cold region, the mobility ratio between injectant and oil still remains very high. In SDOD processes, mobility (viscosity) of the injectant remains important but does not dominate the process. A more significant feature is the short distance an oil particle travels before it is produced. It must be pointed out that SDOD processes are specifically designed for high mobility injection fluids, generally with unfavourable mobility ratios between injectant and oil. Instead of looking for solutions for making the mobility ratio more favourable, the SDOD process reduces its importance. This approach is by far more practical. For most heavy oil pools, even if a mobility ratio of one is attained, injection pressures required to sustain an economically acceptable oil rate may be impractical or lead to fracturing (which is always undesirable in displacement processes). An important feature of SDOD processes is the mitigation of the heterogeneity effect. The negative effects of heterogeneity are abated, mainly due to the use of the horizontal well as a linear sink. Any formed finger will not be allowed to become very large, as the streamlines would not follow the bedding planes. Also, these processes utilize gravity segregation to our advantage. Generally, the SDOD processes use horizontal producers and injectors, or combinations of horizontal producers and vertical injectors. There are two types of SDOD processes: With swept zone surrounding the horizontal producer, and forming an ever-expanding chamber; displacement front is quasi-parallel to horizontal producer; and, With displacement front quasi-perpendicular to horizontal producer; swept zone starts from the toe and progressively moves towards the heel.

(V1 / * Sw ) = V1 = K1 (Pi Pe )S /{( w DF1 / K rw ) + [o(L DF1 ) / K ro ]} (V2 / * Sw ) = V2 = K2 (Pi Pe )S /{( w DF 2 / K rw ) + [o(L DF 2 ) / K ro ]}
In time, both V1 and V2 increase due to a significant decrease of the denominator term containing oil viscosity and the distance, (LDF). For each layer, the average absolute permeability is used in these equations, meaning that the permeability has a contribution to the front velocity, irrespective of the portion of the porous medium where the front is located. In other words, these two front velocities depend on permeability distribution (heterogeneity) of
30

FIGURE 2: Comparative schematic of the two categories of SDOD processes: a) integrally gravity controlled (SAGD/VAPEX); and, b) pressure gradient and gravity controlled (TTH displacement processes). Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 3: Schematic of toe-to-heel air injection (THAI) process.

Figure 2 shows a comparative schematic of the two types of SDOD processes. While the first type uses two parallel horizontal wells (one for injection and the other for production), the second type uses a vertical injector and a horizontal producer with the toe of the producer located in proximity to the shoe of the injector. In the first type, streamlines are perpendicular to the horizontal section of the producer, and the well produces through the entire horizontal section during the producing life. In the second type, the streamlines bend towards the producer, characterizing a distribution of flow, which results from a combined effect of drive parallel to the horizontal well and injectant/oil gravity segregation. Successively smaller sections of the horizontal well are thus utilized for production. Only a portion of the horizontal section close to the heel is used for production during the entire life of the well. A mobile oil zone (MOZ) forms just ahead of the displacement front (Figure 2b). In fact, this is a double MOZ as oil is mobile and flowing within this zone down in the horizontal wellbore, and the zone itself moves from toe to heel. In principle, for very viscous oils, there is, practically, very little flow ahead of MOZ. Displacement performance is not affected by this ahead-of-MOZ region. Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) and Vapour Extraction (VAPEX) processes belong to the first type, while the Toe-To-Heel (TTH) displacement processes, to the second type. TTH displacement processes can be applied in a non-thermal recovery mode, such as Toe-To-Heel Water-Flooding (TTHW), or in a thermal mode such as THAI (Toe-To-Heel Air Injection), with its variant catalytic THAI or CAPRI. The optimum injection rate for SAGD and VAPEX is equal to the rate of gravity drainage of the heated/mobilized oil. These processes are inherently gravity stable and can be termed integrally gravity-controlled SDOD processes. On the other hand, in TTH processes, the injection rate can destabilize TTH displacement, depending on the rate and the injectant/oil density and mobility contrast. Therefore, they can be termed gravity-assisted forced displacement processes. Alternatively, they can also be termed pressure gradient and gravity-controlled SDOD processes. The break-through of the injectant into the horizontal leg of the horizontal producer always occurs in the toe region and then, in a stabilized mode, oil flows into the horizontal well mostly within MOZ. While for SAGD/VAPEX processes, an increase in injection rate above a certain value would not lead to an increased oil rate, in the TTH process, an increase in injection rate can lead to an increased oil rate, as long as the process remains stable. For the TTH processes, the displacement front can become unstable when either gravity segregation, or the tendency for channeling of the injectant through the horizontal producer, becomes significant. In either of these cases, the sweep efficiency
February 2004, Volume 43, No. 2

is reduced. Thus, for the TTHD processes, the notion of a stabilized displacement front has a clear meaning. The front always advances along the horizontal leg of the producer, starting from the toe and moving towards the heel, and it is always quasi-perpendicular to the horizontal leg. While the concept of SAGD was introduced in the late 1970s, and that of VAPEX in early 1980 by R. Butler(5), the idea of TTH displacement processes came later in 1992, and resulted from collaborative research (started in 1992) between the Petroleum Recovery Institute (PRI), Calgary and the University of Bath, England. First, Toe-To-Heel Air Injection (THAI) was investigated(6, 7). Based on THAI, the CAPRI or the catalytic THAI was developed(8, 9). Both these processes involve in situ combustion applied in a TTH displacement fashion. In CAPRI, in situ upgrading of the produced oil is achieved by using the horizontal leg of the horizontal well, not only as an oil producer, but also as a catalytic reactor. In fact, all these processes involve synergistic applications of well-established thermal processes with a new technology of oil displacement, namely TTH displacement. In 1997, 2D Hele-Shaw model tests carried out at the PRI led to the development of the Toe-To-Heel Waterflooding (TTHW) process. This is the only non-thermal TTH displacement process developed to date. Figure 3 shows the schematic of a THAI process. The CAPRITM process follows practically the same schematic. In all these cases, density of the injectant is much lower than that of the oil. The horizontal leg of the producer is located in the lower part of the layer and a vertical well is used for injection. The toe of the horizontal well is close to the shoe of the vertical well, but is located a few metres off, and this is a critical characteristic of a TTH process. Gravity contributes both to the stabilization of the displacement front, and to a reduction in injection pressure by providing part of the hydraulic head necessary for liquids flow. Heated liquids flow downwards towards the horizontal leg of the producer, mostly within the MOZ. Figure 4 shows the schematic of TTHW. It may be noted that this time the horizontal leg of the producer is located in the upper part of the pay, while a vertical well, perforated in the lower part, is used for injection. This arrangement takes into account the density of water being higher than that of the oil. In this case, the gravity contributes to the stabilization of the displacement front, but it does not contribute directly to the reduction of the hydraulic head necessary for liquids flow. These liquids flow upwards, toward the horizontal leg of the producer. Comparing the thermal TTH processes with TTHW processes, it is clear that the former have some definite advantages such as permanent and temporary oil viscosity reduction (due to cracking re-action and temperature increase within the MOZ), leading to an
31

Steam chamber
Mobile Oil Zone: Heated oil
FIGURE 4: Schematics of a gravity stabilized waterflooding [toe-to-heel waterflooding (TTHW)].

Steam Injector

drains down

improvement of the injectant/oil mobility ratio and a reduction of the injection oil pressure due to both downwards flow of fluids, and the viscosity reduction of the mobile oil. The effect of reservoir pre-heating around the horizontal producer can be significant in non-depleted heavy oil reservoirs, with some initial oil mobility. These heat losses can be in the range of 10 20% of the heat injected, depending mainly on the length of the horizontal leg and the production rate. Due to this pre-heating, the oil underneath the horizontal well is largely recovered in a thermal TTH process, while oil above the horizontal well remains un-drained during TTHW. In the case of TTHW, it is difficult to define a MOZ. Depending on the value of pressure maintained at the heel, some oil may flow even further ahead of the displacement front.

Oil

Production Well
FIGURE 5: SAGD schematic.

performance. Another challenge to commercial application is the wind-up phase of the process, related to handling the pressuredepleted SAGD patterns(16).

VAPEX Integrally Gravity Controlled SDOD Processes: SAGD and VAPEX SAGD
The process was extensively evaluated in laboratory tests carried out in both 2D and 3D (packed) models. As a rule, for Athabasca oil sands, these tests showed an ultimate oil recovery upwards of 50%, with a steam-oil ratio in the range of 1 to 3 m3/m3. Simulation studies were also conducted, both for laboratory tests and field scale implementation. The results provided several insights on various phenomena contributing to oil recovery during SAGD. SAGD has been field tested since 1984(11, 12). Presently, there are more than 20 field pilots, and the DOVER Project (former UTF) is in a semi-commercial phase(12-14). The pilot (phase A) consisted of three horizontal well pairs of 75 m length and located 25 m apart. The semi-commercial phase consisted of two well pairs of 300 m length and located 50 m apart. An ultimate oil recovery of 50% was estimated both for the pilot phase and the semi-commercial phase of the DOVER project. Recently, commercial SAGD operations began at Foster Creek, Alberta. Two more projects are scheduled to start shortly at Christina Lake (EnCana) and at MacKay River (Petro-Canada). SAGD is a very unconventional, complex, and labor-intensive process. The applicability conditions for SAGD are rather demanding, mainly in terms of formation thickness (higher than 12 m) and permeability (greater than 5,000 mD)(15, 16). In principle, SAGD has two phases(14): a) rising steam chamber (Figure 2); and, b) spreading steam chamber (Figure 5). The efficiency of the process is much greater during the first phase, when the heat losses to the adjacent formations are lower. Also, existence of undulations in trajectory of both wells (injection and production), or undulations combined with heterogeneity in vertical permeability can lead to channeling of the steam (short-circuit). An optimized SAGD operation is thus very labor intensive, while a non-optimized operation may become uneconomic in some instances. In reservoirs with very high viscosity oil/bitumen, high permeability, and large pay, SAGD is the only field-proven SDOD technology at this point in time. New developments, mainly in the instrumentation of the process, will further improve SAGD
32

VAPEX process is similar to SAGD, but uses a solvent instead of steam(14, 17-19). Therefore, it uses the same well configuration as SAGD, with only the difference of a solvent-diluted oil within the MOZ, instead of a heated zone (Figure 5). VAPEX seems to be very attractive, since it also results in a partial upgrading of the oil, related to an in situ de-asphalting of the oil. In principle, VAPEX is based on a gravity-induced counter-current flow of the solvent vapour and the mobilized oil. The process has been extensively tested in laboratory (and numerical simulators) carried out in both 2D and 3D models. As a rule, for the Athabasca oil sands the tests showed an ultimate oil recovery in the range of 40% to 60%, while the oil rate was usually lower than in SAGD. A VAPEX field pilot in the Dover Project is in the final stage of planning. Two more VAPEX field pilots (Soda Lake pilot in Saskatchewan and a pilot by Baytex) are slated to start soon. The main appeal of this non-thermal process is a significant reduction in costs by eliminating steam facilities/thermal completions, etc. It is believed that by using a gaseous solvent stream (such as propane, CO2, etc), significant amounts of oil can be recovered at rates and costs comparable to SAGD, while much of the solvent may be recovered and re-cycled. Both SAGD and VAPEX processes require a thorough understanding of the resource, its heterogeneity, heat/mass transfer aspects, and a lot of operator attention to ensure their optimal operation. Compared to SAGD, VAPEX seems to be much more sensitive to variations in vertical permeability along the horizontal section of the horizontal injector. While heat conduction aids in achieving an even development of the steam chamber during SAGD, solvent diffusion during VAPEX is comparatively inefficient. The best conditions for VAPEX are in oil sands with net pay of 12 m or thicker, large horizontal permeability (greater than 2 Darcies), significant vertical permeability (greater than 200 md), and confined reservoirs (fining upwards sequence, and the absence of fractures/ faults)(15, 16). A complex problem in the development of VAPEX is defining the conditions leading to in situ precipitation of asphaltenes; this aspect does not seem to be easily controllable. Also, rigorous wind-up procedures for a commercial application are yet to be developed.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Air

3 D Cell Separation Gas Analysers

N2

H 2O

Controller D/A interface

A/D interface

FIGURE 6: 3D combustion cell for the investigation of thermal TTHD processes (THAI and CAPRI)(6).

Pressure Gradient and Gravity Controlled SDOD Processes (TTH Displacement Processes)
The following section describes the current understanding on various TTH displacement processes, derived mainly from laboratory testing and mathematical simulation.

Thermal TTH Displacement Processes: THAI and CAPRI

THAI was extensively tested in a low-pressure (60 psi) laboratory 3D model. It was seen that THAI performed better than the classical in situ combustion using vertical wells. The apparatus used in these tests is shown in Figure 6. The key component is a rectangular stainless steel cell of 0.6 m 0.4 m 0.1 m, which contains oil/water saturated sand. A near-adiabatic operation was achieved by wrapping heating tape around the cell(20). In most of the tests, Wolf Lake heavy oil (viscosity approximately 50,000 mPa.s) was used, although tests were also conducted with other oils, with viscosities as low as 10 mPa.s. More than 50 THAI tests were carried out, both in dry and wet combustion modes, and results were encouraging. These tests showed that for Wolf Lake oil the ultimate oil recovery was upwards of 75%. The propagation of the front was not associated

with gas override (near total stability). Also, a significant amount of thermal upgrading took place. The viscosity of oil was reduced by a factor of five, to values as low as 10,000 mPa.s. Unlike the conventional in situ combustion (ISC) process, THAI yielded consistently upgraded oil. In the conventional ISC, although an upgrading of oil occurs [as demonstrated by Freitag(21)] the produced oil in the field does not show any significant upgrading because it is mixed with non-upgraded oil. Laboratory tests yielded even more promising results for the Athabasca oil sand, where thermal upgrading resulted in a viscosity reduction from a million mPas to 500 mPas(10). The propagation of the front was also very stable. Simulation of the dry THAI process(22) shows that ISC front is quasi-vertical during its propagation. Furthermore, this propagation occurs in a stabilized mode. Figure 7a shows horizontal temperature profiles obtained in a 3D laboratory model, while Figure 8a shows the same profiles obtained with a simulation model. Similarly, Figure 7b shows temperature profiles along a vertical plane during the experiment, while Figure 8b shows corresponding profiles from a simulation run. Uniform advance of the ISC front can be seen from these figures. This quasi-vertical position of the ISC front was also confirmed independently(23). The most remarkable feature of this process is the ease of control, compared to any conventional ISC operations(24-30). The main advantages of the THAI process are shown in Table 1. It can be seen that THAI can be applied to formations, as thin as 6 m. It was mentioned that THAI produced thermally upgraded oil. This ability was catalytically enhanced by a new process, catalytic THAI or CAPRI. The CAPRI process is a variant of THAI, in which oil and entrained reducing gases pass over a catalyst placed down-hole, at temperatures of over 400 C; no additional surface upgrading is required in this case. CAPRI involves placing a bed of catalyst around the horizontal leg of producer, using a conventional gravel pack placement. The high temperature is achieved due to in situ combustion. This process has been developed using the same physical simulator(10, 29). More than 20 CAPRI tests have been performed. The tests, using 50,000 mPas Wolf Lake oil and Nickel and Molybdenum catalysts, showed an upgrading to 30 mPas

FIGURE 7a-b: THAI process. Vertical and horizontal mid-plane temperature profiles for Athabasca tar sand. Run 2000-04(10). February 2004, Volume 43, No. 2 33

TABLE 1: Potential benefits of THAI.

Immediate oil production (no waiting period). Can be applied to relatively thin formations, having a pay thickness as low as 6 m. Unique mobile oil zone (MOZ) downstream of the in situ combustion front reduces sensitivity (preferential advancement) to reservoir heterogeneity, mainly for extra-heavy oil reservoirs. High sweep efficiency, related to the controlled gas override and gas seal in the horizontal producer. Significant thermal upgrading, which gives higher oil production rates and less separation costs. Increased fluid injectivity due to upgraded/heated oil production and the lack of flow ahead of MOZ. Easy front tracking via its toe-to-heel propagation. For a commercial line drive operation, and a fixed well pattern, the number of wells is reduced to almost half due to their use, first as producers and then as injectors. Significant environmental benefits due to in situ removal of sulphur and heavy metals.

FIGURE 8a: Horizontal mid-plane temperature distribution(22).

20

API Point of the Produced Oil

18 16 14 12 10

Run 984 Dry Combustion Run 985 Wet Combustion

60

120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

Time (min)

FIGURE 9: Variation of oil upgrading during dry and wet THAI using Wolf Lake oil (viscosity 50,000 mPas)(20).

FIGURE 8b: Vertical mid-plane temperature distribution(22).

API Density of the Produced Oil

25
Run 2000-01 Run 2000-02

20

Catalytic (CAPRI) Non-catalytic (THAI) Wet Combustion

The CAPRITM process creates the possibility of building small-scale down-hole field upgraders, where conventional upgraders are economically unattractive. However, it needs to be tested under a variety of field conditions, and the role of various parametres needs to be investigated. Field testing of the THAI process in Athabasca oil sands at Conklin, near Fort McMurray, Alberta, is scheduled to start in 2004.

Non-Thermal TTHD Processes: TTHW

TTHW is also a near-gravity stable waterflood process that was developed for exploitation of intermediate viscosity oil with a certain minimum initial mobility under reservoir conditions, although it can be used for light oil reservoirs as well. Preliminary laboratory tests were performed in a 2D HeleShaw physical model, mimicking a porous medium, as shown in Figure 11. First, reference tests of green water displacing clear water were performed and then oil displacement tests both in a TTH configuration and in the conventional (vertical injector-vertical producer) array were performed. These tests were conducted with five dead oils having viscosities in the range 10 mPas to 14,000 mPas, and brines with salt content of 3% and 23% by weight. For illustration, water invaded area for an oil with a viscosity of 1,200 mPas is shown in Figure 12, while the corresponding results are shown in Table 2. Oil recovery figures here should be interpreted in terms of vertical sweep efficiency, as only the displacement in the vertical section was investigated(1, 30). As seen in Table 2, the ultimate oil recovery was higher for TTHW, when compared to conventional waterflood. Feasibility of the process was demonstrated in a 3D physical simulator filled with a porous medium, where the ability of the process to achieve good horizontal sweep efficiency was confirmed. Main results are shown in Figure 13. For the same oil (780 mPas viscosity) and the same injection rate, the ultimate oil
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

15

10

60

120

180

240

300

360

420

480

540

600

Time (min)
FIGURE 10: Thermal and catalytic oil upgrading in THAI and CAPRI processes for Athabasca tar sand(9, 10).

throughout the entire test, except for the early period (10 20% of the test) following initiation (Figure 9). Recent tests using Athabasca bitumen and the same catalysts showed an upgrading to oil viscosity of 40 mPas, at even steadier rates, compared to the Wolf Lake tests. The results for Athabasca oil sand tests using both THAI and CAPRITM processes (Figure 10) show an extra upgrading of 3, by using CAPRI. Upgrading by 3 is obtained by using CAPRITM. In tests conducted with both oils, the heavy metals and sulphur content of the produced oil were significantly reduced. For instance, the Wolf Lake oil tests showed that sulphur was reduced from 43,000 ppm to 5,100 ppm, and Vanadium from 195 ppm to 8 ppm. These reductions have major environmental implications.
34

FIGURE 11: Laboratory set-up (Hele-Shaw model) for TTHW investigation.

FIGURE 12: Hele-Shaw model. The shape of water invaded area in a TTHW test, at water breakthrough. Oil viscosity 1,200 mPas.

TABLE 2: Hele-Shaw Model results of TTHW Application l.

Oil viscosity, mPas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,200 Oil density, g/cc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.971 Brine-oil density difference, g/cc . . . . . .0.049 Brine injection rate, ml/h . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5 Flood Type Conventional TTHW Well lay-out VI-VP VI-HP % Recovery at % Recovery break-through (ultimate) 22 21 40 67

Stability of TTH Displacement Processes

The TTH processes, in their fundamental formulation, place the initial point of production very close to the injection. In principle, if the horizontal section offers a very large conductivity, significant bypassing of the reservoir occurs. At the other extreme, if the well offers extremely low conductivity compared to that of the reservoir itself, toe-to heel displacement would not occur; instead, overriding/underriding of the injectant is accentuated. Recent investigationslaboratory tests and simulation showed that in THAI, the diameter of the horizontal section is less important, as there is an additional mechanism for stability, i.e., the existence of a moving coke deposit over a limited portion, ahead of the ISC front(32). This coke deposit represents a gas seal. The injectant will have a tendency to override/underride the oil, while heterogeneity will cause some small frontal instability (fingers), with a tendency to distort the displacement front. Due to the short-distance displacement nature, any developed finger does not significantly grow. The main design objective in completion of the horizontal section will be to provide the capability to effectively drain the oil, by achieving the most favourable pressure distribution along the horizontal section. Pressure distribution around the well is determined, amongst other factors, by a lateral pressure drop within the horizontal section of the well, similar to the case of single-well SAGD operations(33). Simulation work, calibrated by laboratory tests, showed that pressure drop, resulting from the diameter of the horizontal section wellbore, is an important parameter; much more important than in thermal TTH processes. While in normal TTHW operation, the horizontal section is left open continuously, the closing off of the toe-region perforations, as the flood advances, results in incremental oil recovery(34).

Legend: VI = Vertical injector; VP, HP = Vertical and horizontal producer

recovery was almost double, compared to that for conventional waterflood(31). Presently, two field applications of TTHW are under consideration. A schematic for field application of the TTHW in a staggered line-drive mode is illustrated in Figure 14. Once the first row of producers is watered-out, the pilot hole of the horizontal wells is converted to the injector and the process continues for flooding of the region between the first and the second row of producers. The same scheme can be applied for the line-drive THAI process, with the difference in that the horizontal producers are uphill toe horizontal wells instead of downhill-toe horizontal wells, and the process starts from the uppermost part of the reservoir instead of the lowest part, as for the TTHW. Compared to other SDOD processes, this mode of application requires only half the number of wells. Each well is used first as a horizontal producer and then as a vertical injector. Simulation studies of the process yielded additional insights in how the water displaces oil, and the best conditions for field application. Recent laboratory and simulation work, aimed at optimization of the process showed significant promise.
Oil produced 40 TTHW 30 20 10 0.5 1 1 .5 2 Conv.

(% oil in place)

Water injected (pore volume)

FIGURE 13: 3D porous medium model comparison of TTHW with conventional waterflooding; oil viscosity = 780 mPas. February 2004, Volume 43, No. 2

FIGURE 14a: Field application of TTHW. 35

FIGURE 14b: Field application of TTHW (using downhill-toe horizontal wells).

FIGURE 14c: Field application of TTHW (with downhill-toe horizontal producers).

Common Features and Problems of SDOD Processes

In applying SDOD processes for heavy oil and bitumen recovery, the most important aspect is the creation of an initial communication (link) between injectors and injectors-producers. This is known as an important step for SAGD and VAPEX. However, this is even more important for TTH displacement processes, where it is intended to create not only the communication, but also the initial quasi-vertical displacement front, and later on to anchor it properly at the toe of the horizontal well. Because the distance over which the communication is needed may be larger than in SAGD/VAPEX, this is a greater challenge. This step is extremely important to the successful application of all SDOD thermal processes. To some extent, the TTHW is an exception because the creation of an initial communication path is not a critical requirement, as the TTHW is intended for oils having some mobility at reservoir conditions. The communication step is very important for thermal TTH displacement processes because subsequent development of the processes will depend to a great extent on the quality of this initial front. For oil sands, in order to create the initial communication, there are only two options: either to heat the inter-well region until the oil contained in the region achieves a certain minimum mobility or to mechanically develop some artificial paths (fractures). In the latter case, this may hurt performance due to a lack of control creating such an intense heterogeneity. The first approach seems preferable, and different procedures (such as steam circulation in both the injector and producer) can be used. Other means of limited space heating (such as electrical heating) could also be investigated. Certain minimum oil mobility, and some initial energy (reservoir pressure) will greatly help in creating the communication by an initial cyclic steam stimulation of the injection and production wells. In SDOD processes, primarily SAGD or VAPEX, the injectorproducer pair does not span the entire drainage area, although the oil is recovered from a significant area. However, from the laboratory investigations, there is no convincing proof for this statement. Eventually, only semi-commercial or commercial operations would be able to confirm if the effective drainage area is large.

Main Differences Between SAGD/VAPEX and Thermal TTH Displacement Processes SAGD vs. THAI
SAGD is a very unconventional process and is very different from any conventional flooding of a 5-spot or other pattern configurations. It uses a modified two-spot configuration, in which
36

two horizontal wells are parallel, with the injection well placed directly above the production well (Figure 5). The main idea for SAGD is that steam heats the oil and the heated oil flows through the MOZ towards the production well. Gravity is the principal driving force. In both SAGD and VAPEX processes, the negative effect of gravity segregation is mitigated, while the effect of vertical permeability heterogeneity along the horizontal direction still remains. In thermal TTH displacement processes, the effect of horizontal permeability heterogeneity along the vertical direction is significantly abated, while the effect of gravity segregation still remains to some extent. For SAGD and VAPEX, the higher the pay thickness, the better the expected performance. A maximum pay thickness is not an application criterion. However, in the case of thermal TTH processes, a maximum pay thickness may be a screening criterion. This is so because for oil reservoirs with a very large pay thickness, the expected strong overriding effect may not be totally controlled, or even the desirable initial quasi-vertical displacement front may not be effectively created. On the other hand, as TTH processes involve the drilling of just one horizontal well, while SAGD and VAPEX involve two horizontal wells (one on top of the other, approximately 2 m to 5 m away), the minimum thickness can be smaller for TTH processes. In fact, the minimum pay thickness is approximately 12 m for SAGD and VAPEX (2 m to underburden interface, 3 m between horizontal wells and a minimum of 7 m up to the top of formation), while it can be as low as 6 m for TTH processes (2 m to underburden/overburden interface, and a minimum of 4 m up to the top/bottom of formation). While in both processes the heated oil remains hot as it flows through the MOZ, there are several differences between SAGD and THAI, namely: 1. Through laboratory work, THAI has proved to be robust when applied in a stratified 3-layer reservoir with a 5:1 permeability contrast(35). The horizontal section of the producer was oriented parallel to the bedding planes. Similar laboratory tests with SAGD exhibited a pronounced distortion of the steam chamber shape, and resulted in reduced process efficiency(14). 2. Efficiency of SAGD during the late stage can significantly decrease. Heat losses to the overburden increase progressively, while some oil is heated but not produced (capture efficiency is low). THAI, on the other hand, seems to have a steady performance, while the displacement front travels from the toe to the heel of the horizontal well, i.e., from the start to the end of the process. For commercial applications, based on the same drainage area per production well, THAI requires only half the number of wells, given the fact that in a line drive application, each well is used first as a producer (the horizontal section is completed) and then as an injector (the vertical section is completed), Figures 14a c. 3. Due to the counter-current flow (in most of the drainage area), it seems that in SAGD, the existing reservoir energy
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

(natural drive) and the injection-generated-drive are not fully utilized. That is the main reason why SAGD was recommended for application in reservoirs with low energy (low current pressure and solution-gas oil ratio) prevailing in oil sands (5). On the other hand, combination of gravity and forced drive (via the MOZ) is extremely efficient in the THAI process, where no counter-current flow exists in any part of the drainage area. Unlike SAGD, THAI does not require large amounts of water and does not need to burn natural gases. These considerations are very important for certain regions.

VAPEX vs. THAI

Investigations of the effect of heterogeneity on the VAPEX process indicated significant losses in the process efficiency(17). The THAI process, using a cheap injectant (air), does not require any special pressurization of the depleted patterns, while the VAPEX process does, especially when the recovery of the expensive injected solvent is important(36). While THAI results in an in situ upgrading by thermal and catalytic cracking at relatively high temperatures, in VAPEX the upgrading occurs at reservoir temperature, which is an advantage(19). However, according to the terminology of the surface upgraders, the oil produced during THAI undergoes full upgrading (with almost total removal of the heavy metals and sulphur), while VAPEX creates minimum upgrading, similar to that obtained during a refinery solvent fractionation process(18, 19).

ment mode. It can achieve high oil recovery and oil rates, and is operationally easy to control. Also, it results in a significant and steady thermal in situ upgrading of the produced oil. A field test of THAI is in the planning stage. Catalytic THAI or CAPRITM is characterized by additional in situ oil upgrading, as it is being produced. 6. TTHW, Toe-To-Heel Waterflooding, was investigated for its vertical sweep in a Hele-Shaw model. Compared to the conventional vertical injectorvertical producer scheme, the results were encouraging. Subsequent 3D porous medium tests and detailed simulations confirmed the potential of the process. Two field applications are under consideration. 7. In further developing SDOD processes, the most important aspect to investigate is the creation of an initial communication (link). While this is in a relatively more advanced stage for SAGD and VAPEX, and thermal TTH processes, it requires further systematic investigations. For the thermal TTH processes, this phase is critical to the proper formation of the initial displacement front and its anchoring to the horizontal producer. It is likely that the success of the thermal TTH processes will depend heavily on how robustly such communication is established.

REFERENCES
1. TURTA, A., Toe-To-Heel Displacement; short paper presented at the 1st Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, June 4 8, 2000. 2. MUSKAT, M., The Physical Principles of Oil Production; McGraw Hill, New York, 1949. 3. DYKSTRA, H. and PARSONS, R.L., The Prediction of Waterflooding Performance With Variation in Permeability Profile; Producers Monthly, p. 15, 1950. 4. CODREANU, D. and IONESCU, P., Oil Displacement by Water in Highly Stratified Systems. Part l: Up to Water Break-Through; In Petrol si Gaze, Vol. 19, No. 4 (In Romanian), April 1968. 5. BATYCKY, J., An Assessment of In Situ Oil Sands Recovery Processes; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 15-19, September 1997. 6. GREAVES, M. and TURTA, A., Oilfield In Situ Combustion Process; U.S. Patent No. 5,626,191, Canadian Patent 2,176,639, May 6, 1997. 7. GREAVES, M. and XIA, T.X., Preserving Down-Hole Thermal Upgrading Using Toe-to-Heel ISC- Horizontal Wells Process; paper 98-197, the 7th UNITAR International Conference on Heavy Oil and Tar Sand, Beijing, China, October 27 30, 1998. 8. AYASSE, C., GREAVES, M., and TURTA, A., Oilfield In Situ Hydrocarbon Upgrading Process; U.S. Patent No. 6,412,557, July 2, 2002. 9. GREAVES, M., SAGHR, A.E., and XIA, T.X., CAPRI Horizontal Well Reactor for Catalytic Upgrading of Heavy Oil; Symposium on Advances in Oil Field Chemistry: Downhole Upgrading, ASC National Meeting, Washington, DC, August 20 25, 2000. 10. XIA, T.X. and GREAVES, M., Upgrading Athabasca Tar Sand Using Toe-To-Heel Air Injection; Fourth International Conference and Exposition on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, AB, November 6 8, 2000. 11. OROURKE, J.C., YEE, C.T., CHAMBERS, J.I., BEGLEY, A.G., BOYLE, H.A., and LUHNING, R.W., UTF Project Status Update, May 1997; The Petroleum Society, 48th Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, AB, June 9 12, 1997. 12. KOMERY, D.P., et al., Pilot Testing of Post-Steam Bitumen Recovery From Mature SAGD Wells in Canada; Petroleum Society, 49th Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, June 10 12, 1998. 13. FAROUQ, ALI S.M., Is There Life After SAGD?; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 20-23, June 1997. 14. BUTLER, R.M., Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen; Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1991. 15. SINGHAL, A.K., DAS, S.K., LEGGITT, S.M., KASRAIE, M., and ITO, Y., Screening Reservoirs for Exploitation by Application of SAGD/VAPEX Processes; paper SPE 37144. 16. SINGHAL, A.K., ITO, Y., and KASRAIE, M., Screening and Design Criteria for Assisted Drainage Projects Application of SAGD/VAPEX Processes; paper SPE 50410, 3 rd SPE/CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, AB, November 1 4, 1998. 37

Conclusions
1. In Short-Distance Oil Displacement (SDOD) processes, oil is displaced over short distances, mainly within the mobile oil zone, which is formed ahead of the displacement front. SDOD processes are specifically suitable for cases where injectant/oil mobility ratio is unfavourable. SAGD, VAPEX and Toe-To-Heel (TTH) displacement processes belong to SDOD processes. In SAGD and VAPEX, the adverse effect of gravity segregation is almost eliminated, but the negative effect of lateral and vertical heterogeneity still persists. On the other hand, in TTH processes, the negative effect of the heterogeneity is significantly mitigated, while the gravity segregation effect, although mitigated, still exists, and it can impact on the stability of the process, depending on the value of the injection rate. 2. While SAGD and VAPEX use two horizontal wells, a TTH process uses one horizontal producer and one vertical injector. SAGD and VAPEX are integrally gravity-controlled processes, while TTH processes are pressure gradient and gravity-controlled. As of 2003, SAGD is by far the most advanced of the three, with a commercial project in operation. The other two methods are still in the development stage. 3. While VAPEX is using the same configuration as SAGD, solvent is injected instead of steam. The application conditions are as demanding as for SAGD. VAPEX is more sensitive to permeability heterogeneity than SAGD. Both VAPEX and TTH processes have the advantage of not using large amount of water and of not requiring the burning of large quantities of natural gas. 4. Typically, TTH displacement processes use a horizontal producer having its toe close to the shoe of a vertical injector. The horizontal section of the producer is located either at the top or at the bottom of the pay section, depending on the density of injectant and oil. A displacement front is generated and anchored to the toe of the horizontal producer. Thereafter, this quasi-vertical displacement front travels from the toe to the heel, steered by the lateral pressure drop within the horizontal well. Oil is produced soon after its mobilization. 5. THAITM, Toe-To-Heel Air Injection, is essentially a variation of in situ combustion, operated in a toe-to-heel displaceFebruary 2004, Volume 43, No. 2

17. MOKRYS, I.J. and BUTLER, R.M., In Situ Upgrading of Heavy Oils by Propane De-Asphalting: The VAPEX Process; paper SPE 25452, March 21, 1993. 18. JIANG, Q., Recovery of Heavy Oil and Bitumen Using VAPEX Process in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Rocks; Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Calgary, 1997. 19. GRAY, M.R., Field Upgrading Technologies; Canadian Heavy Oil Association Conference, Calgary, AB, November 24, 1999. 20. GREAVES, M., SAGHR, A.M., XIA, T.X., TURTA, A., and AYASSE, C., Recent Laboratory Results of THAI and its Comparison With Other Thermal Processes; SPE/DOE IOR Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 3 5, 2000. 21. FREITAG, N.P. and EXELBY, R., Heavy Oil Production by In Situ CombustionDistinguishing Effects of the Steam and Fire Fronts; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 37, No. 4, April 1998. 22. GREAVES, M. and XIA, T.X., Simulation Studies of THAI Process; 1st Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, June 4 8, 2000. 23. COATS, R. and ZHAO, L., Numerical Simulation of THAI Process; 2nd Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, June 12 14, 2001. 24. GREAVES, M., XIA, T.X., TURTA, A.T., and AYASSE, C., THAINew Air Injection Technology for Heavy Oil Recovery and In Situ Upgrading; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 40, No. 3, March 2001. 25. XIA, T.X., GREAVES, M., and TURTA, A.T., Injection Well Producer Well Combinations in THAI Toe-To-Heel Air Injection; technical note in Journal of Petroleum Technology, June 2002. 26. GREAVES, M. and AL-SHAMALI, O., In Situ Combustion (ISC) Process Using Horizontal Wells; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 35, No. 4, April 1996. 27. AL-SHAMALI, O., In Situ Combustion Process Using Horizontal Wells; M.Phil. Thesis, University of Bath, 1993. 28. TUWIL, A.A., Horizontal Producer Wells In Situ Combustion Processes; M.Phil Thesis, University of Bath, 1991. 29. AYASSE, C., New Heavy Oil Recovery Processes; CMG Advances, Vol. 12, Issue 1, June 2000. 30. TURTA, A.T., AYASSE, C., NAJMAN, J., FISHER, D., and SINGHAL, A.K., Laboratory Investigations of Gravity Stable Waterflooding Using Toe-To-Heel DisplacementPart l: HeleShaw Model Results; Petroleum Society/SPE/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and Horizontal Well Technology Conference, Calgary, AB, November 4 7, 2002. 31. TURTA, A.T., ZHAO, L., and SINGHAL, A.K., Gravity Stable Waterflooding (Toe-To-Heel Waterflooding): A Potential Recovery Process for Lloydminster Type ll Reservoirs; 8th SPE/CIM One-Day Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, AB, November 7th, 2001. 32. XIA T. X., GREAVES, M., and TURTA, A.T., Main Mechanisms for Stability of THAIToe-To-Heel Air Injection; presented at the 4th Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, June 10 12, 2003. 33. SINGHAL, A.K., SWAPAN, D., GOLDMAN, J., and TURTA, A.T., A Mechanistic Study of Single-Well SAGD; paper SPE 59333, IOR Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 3 5, 2000. 34. TURTA, A.T., et al., Enhanced (Gravity Stable) Waterflooding Using Toe-To-Heel Displacement; Alberta Research Council Reports from 2001, 2002, and 2003. 35. GREAVES, M. and AL-HONI, M., Three Dimensional Studies of THAI With Reservoir Heterogeneities; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 39, No. 10, October 2000. 36. TURTA, A.T., SINGHAL, A.K., GOLDMAN, J., and MAINI, B., Economically Beneficial Waste Gas Injection for Medium/ Heavy Oil Depletion; Petroleum Recovery Institute Report, July 1999.

Indexes 1 = layer 1; 2 = layer 2; d = displacing; w = water; o = oil

Provenance Original Petroleum Society manuscript, Overview of Short-Distance Oil Displacement Processes (2000-184), first presented at the 4th International Conference and Exhibition on Horizontal Well Technology, November 6-8, 2000, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review November 8, 1999; editorial comments sent to the author(s) November 29, 2001; revised manuscript received November 26, 2003, final approval January 14, 2004.

Authors Biographies
Alex Turta is a research engineer at the Petroleum Recovery Institute (PRI) which is now part of the Alberta Research Council (ARC). Alex has a Ph.D. in thermal methods of oil recovery. For more than 12 years, Alex was involved in the implementation and management of the worlds largest commercial in situ combustion project. Since 1992, Alex has been part of the PRI-University of Bath, UK team, which has continuously worked on both sides of the Atlantic to develop and improve the new short-distance oil displacement processes, namely Toe-To-Heel Air Injection (THAI) and its version for in situ upgrading, CAPRI. Also, in the last seven years, he has been instrumental in the development of the Toe-To-Heel Waterflooding process. Alex has served as a consultant to field EOR projects in Ecuador, Columbia, India, Malaysia, Romania, Russia, and USA. Ashok Singhal is a research scientist at the Petroleum Recovery Institute (PRI) which is now part of the Alberta Research Council (ARC). Ashok has a Ph.D. in petroleum engineering from the University of California, Berkley, and has been working in the area of EOR in the laboratory and reservoir simulation, as well as on field implementation and evaluation of EOR projects. In recent years, Ashok worked on mechanistic and mass transport aspects of SAGD, Single Well SAGD, VAPEX, and Toe-to-Heel Water Flooding. He has also served as a consultant to field EOR projects in Canada, Malaysia, Brazil, and Trinidad.

NOMENCLATURE
V = V = = = Sw = K = Pi and Pe = L = DF = velocity of the displacement front Darcy flow velocity porosity; S = filtration surface dynamic viscosity water saturation change (piston-like theory) absolute permeability ; Kr = relative permeability inlet and outlet pressure (linear system) length of the system (see Figure 1) distance from the inlet to the displacement front

38

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology