The Effect of Regular and Long Cyclic Steam Stimulation Method on Oil Production Performance of RUA Field in Central Sumatera
Abstract
RUA field is classified into heavy oil reservoir type due to the high viscosity value and low API degree . This causes the RUA field can not be produced conventionally. the solution of this problem is to apply steam or thermal injection into reservoir which could reduce the viscosity of the heavy oil (Bera & Babadagli, 2015). One of the best EOR methods that has been proven to overcome this issue is using CSS method (Suranto et al., 2020). During the production period, the CSS process can affect the viscosity of the oil by increasing the temperature of the oil in the reservoir. In one production well, cyclic work are applied periodically, its called repeated cyclic (J. J. Sheng, 2013). This is because time of reservoir temperature stays above the baseline temperature reservoir shortly. Even though the cyclic already done repeatedly, there is still a decrease of oil production, different peak reservoir temperatures, and found the possibility of pump damage after the cycle job which led to the need for analysis on these issues.
The analysis was performed by looking at the historical production data, historical reservoir temperature data, and production pump work data in the RUA field. After a production history data that reprsentative analyzed, it was found that teh production after cyclic there is increasing, and there is also a decline from the previous cyclic production. Based on the results of the production analysis, it was found that 53.24% of the production wells in the RUA field were already in the ramp down stage and 46.75% were already in the ramp-up stage. Meanwhile, the average HET for regular cyclic jobs is 3-4 months and 5-6 months for long cyclic jobs. And from the pump work data, only 3 wells were damaged. This suggests that cyclic stimulation is completely safe to be performed in this field.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Afdhol, M. K., Erfando, T., Hidayat, F., Hasibuan, M. Y., & Regina, S. (2020). The Prospect of Electrical Enhanced Oil Recovery for Heavy Oil: A Review. Journal of Earth Energy Engineering, 8(2), 73–94.
Ali, S. M. F. (1994). CSS - Canada’s Super Strategy For Oil Sands. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 33(09).
Bera, A., & Babadagli, T. (2015). Status of electromagnetic heating for enhanced heavy oil/bitumen recovery and future prospects: A review. Applied Energy, 151, 206–226.
Fuaadi, I. M., Pearce, J. C., & Gael, B. T. (1991). Evaluation of Steam-Injection Designs for the Duri Steamflood Project .
Putra, E. A., Rachman, Y. A., Firmanto, T., Arsyadanie, R., & Hafizh, G. (2011). Case Study: Cyclic Steam Stimulation in Sihapas Formation .
Sheng, J. J. (2013). Chapter 16 - Cyclic Steam Stimulation. In J. J. B. T.-E. O. R. F. C. S. Sheng (Ed.), Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Case Studies (pp. 389–412). Gulf Professional Publishing.
Speight, J. G. (2009). Chapter 7 - Thermal Methods of Recovery. In Enhanced Recovery Methods for Heavy Oil and Tar Sands (pp. 221–260). Gulf Publishing Company.
Suranto, A. M., Swadesi, B., & Widyaningsih, I. (2020). Combination of Cyclic Steam Stimulation and Steam Flooding to Improve Oil Recovery in Unconsolidated Sand Heavy Oil Reservoir. Journal of Earth Energy Engineering, 9(2), 80–87.
Trigos, E. M., Avila, R. D., Lozano, M. E., Jimenez, A. M., & Osorio, C. A. (2016). Strategies to Increase Production in a Colombian Heavy Oil Field with Cyclic Steam Stimulation (p. afd).
Wang, Y., Ren, S., Zhang, L., Peng, X., Pei, S., Cui, G., & Liu, Y. (2018). Numerical study of air assisted cyclic steam stimulation process for heavy oil reservoirs: Recovery performance and energy efficiency analysis. Fuel, 211(August 2017), 471–483.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29017/SCOG.43.1.525
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.