Benefit–Cost and Energy Efficiency Index to Support the Screening of Hybrid Cyclic Steam Stimulation Methods

Laura Osma, Luis García, Romel Pérez, Carolina Barbosa, Jesús Botett, Jorge Sandoval and Eduardo Manrique
Additional contact information
Laura Osma: Petroleum Engineer School, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Bucaramanga 680002, Colombia
Luis García: Petroleum Engineer School, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Bucaramanga 680002, Colombia
Romel Pérez: Instituto Colombiano del Petróleo/Ecopetrol, Piedecuesta 681011, Colombia
Carolina Barbosa: Petroleum Engineer School, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Bucaramanga 680002, Colombia
Jesús Botett: Petroleum Engineer School, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Bucaramanga 680002, Colombia
Jorge Sandoval: Instituto Colombiano del Petróleo/Ecopetrol, Piedecuesta 681011, Colombia
Eduardo Manrique: Instituto Colombiano del Petróleo/Ecopetrol, Piedecuesta 681011, Colombia

Energies, 2019, vol. 12, issue 24, 1-16

Abstract: Most of the evaluations of thermal enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods in numerical simulations mainly focus on the identification of recovery processes with the greatest potential to increase oil recovery. In some cases, the economic aspects of the EOR methods evaluated are also considered. However, these studies often lack the evaluation of the energy efficiency of the proposed methods as a strategy to support the selection of profitable recovery processes. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the potential of different hybrid cyclic steam stimulation (CSS, with flue gas, foam, nanoparticles, or solvents) methods based on a numerical simulation study using a radial model representative of a large heavy oil reservoir in the Middle Magdalena Basin, Colombia. The simulation results were used to estimate the benefit–cost (B/C) ratios and energy efficiency (EE) indices that can be used to screen and rank the hybrid CSS methods studied. When comparing different hybrid methods, it was found that CSS with nanoparticles or solvents performed better during the first two steam cycles (higher oil saturations). However, CSS with foam and flue gases showed higher incremental oil production (≥3564 bbls or 567 m 3 ) during the sixth steam cycle. Based on an energy cost index (ECI = [(B/C) / EE]), CSS with foam outperformed (ECI ≈ 453) cyclic steam injection with flue gases (ECI ≈ 21) and solvents (ECI ≈ 0.1) evaluated during the sixth steam cycle. The results show that this methodology can be used to guide decision-making to identify hybrid CSS methods that can increase oil recovery in a cost-effective manner and provide an efficient energy balance.

Keywords: enhanced oil recovery; thermal methods; cyclic steam stimulation; cyclic steam injection; hybrid technologies; numerical simulation; energy balance; benefit-to-cost ratio (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/24/4631/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/24/4631/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:24:p:4631-:d:294796

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().