1

SPE 54082

Recovery Of Heavy Oil From The Monterey Formation In Offshore California By Cyclic
Injection Of Light Oil Diluent
R. L. Garnett, SPE, and C. L. Dee, SPE, Exxon Company, U.S.A.

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

of the heavy oil as it reaches the sea floor results in additional
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium held in Bakersfield, California, 17–19 March 1999.
producing problems. As seen in Figure 2, a 10° API oil has an
in-situ viscosity of 100 cp at 200° F. As the heavy oil flows to
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as the surface and cools, viscosity can rise above 10,000 cp and
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
cause severe lifting problems. Deep, long throw wells (6,000-
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at 10,000 ft. subsea), an offshore operating environment, a frac-
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper ture zone with an active aquifer, and low heavy oil prices rule
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
out most methods of heavy oil recovery. The challenge is to
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledg- find a low cost method to lower the viscosity of the oil in both
ment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box
833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. the near well region and the tubing. This paper documents a
simple and inexpensive way to lower viscosity by an order of
Abstract magnitude or more through cyclic injection of light oil.
This paper describes a single well pilot in which light oil dilu-
ent was injected through tubing to lower in-situ oil viscosity Theory
and increase production from a low gravity oil well. The pilot Darcy's Law for radial, steady state flow describes fluid flow
well is located on the Heritage platform in the Santa Ynez Unit in porous media. This simple equation gives guidance and
and produces from the Monterey formation. The pilot vali- insight to solve many oil production problems:
dated laboratory data which suggested that large production q = 7.082 kh(Pe-Pw)/µo Bo ln(re / rw) (1)
rate increases could result from high rate diluent injection.
This pilot focused on reducing viscosity (µo) as a method
Introduction to increase production rate (q). While the other components
The Monterey formation is a complex reservoir with intense are also important, they were less critical for the following
structuring, fracturing, and highly variable rock properties. It reasons:
is a dual porosity system, with low permeability matrix rock 1. Fracture permeability in the major producing intervals
and extensive fracturing. The fractures provide the flow path of the Monterey formation in the Santa Barbara Channel is
to the wells and are well connected to a very large aquifer. excellent. Wells have produced at rates in excess of 9000
The fluid system is equally complex. The original oil column STB/day from as little as 40 ft. TVD of perforated interval.
was 2,000 ft. thick and the oil gravity varied from 5-19° API. Average permeabilities are in the multi-darcy range.
Gravity-depth relationships vary within the field area. 2. High drawdowns may be harmful in the long run due to
Heavy oil, as defined in this paper, is oil with dead oil an unfavorable oil-water viscosity ratio. High drawdowns can
gravities of approximately 11° API or less. Figure 1 is a geo- result in water coning and fingering through the fractures,
thermal temperature gradient curve for offshore California. leaving bypassed oil in the formation. In addition, alternative
Figure 2 is an estimation of live oil viscosities for Monterey lifting methods to increase drawdown can be costly due to long
crude as a function of temperature and dead oil gravity. Re- throws and deep completions in the offshore environment.
covering the heavier oil at economic rates without producing Reducing in-situ oil viscosity can improve the oil-water
large volumes of water is a challenge due to a strong aquifer, viscosity ratio, reduce water coning and fingering, reduce wa-
highly permeable fractures, and a poor oil-water viscosity ra- ter cut, reduce lifting problems, and increase production rates
tio. Achieving the large drawdown required to produce heavy and oil recovery from fractured heavy oil reservoirs.
oil at the high rates needed for economic operations offshore
can result in the oil being bypassed by water flowing through HE-26 Pilot
the fractures. Even if bypassing can be avoided, the flow rate Background. The Heritage platform began producing from
of heavy oil to the wellbore can be low. Furthermore, cooling the Pescado Field in the Santa Ynez Unit in December, 1993.
2 R. L. GARNETT, C. L. DEE SPE 54082

Wells produce 10-17° API oil from the Monterey and 34 de- cut. A method to significantly lower the well's emulsion vis-
gree API oil from sandstone formations. The Monterey for- cosity was needed.
mation consists of thin beds of porcelanite, chert, calcite,
dolomite, and shale. The beds are highly fractured and well Key Considerations. Lab tests run in September, 1997,
connected both areally and vertically by an extensive fracture showed that the viscosity of Monterey emulsions could be re-
network. The fractures provide the primary flow paths in the duced dramatically by mixing with oil produced from sand-
reservoir, and result in well rates as high as 10,000 STB/day. stone formations. In this study, oil samples were taken from
Formation pressure is supported by re-injection of produced the HE-25, a sandstone producer, and three Heritage Monterey
gas as well as a large well-connected aquifer. The original oil wells. The Monterey wells included a wide range of produced
column was approximately 2,000 ft. thick, and contained un- oil gravities and water cuts. Sample viscosities were measured
dersaturated oil with gravities grading from 19° API at the at 100, 130 and 160° F. Oil from the HE-25 was blended into
crest of the structure to 5° API at the original oil-water contact. the Monterey samples and the resulting emulsion viscosity was
Wells either flow naturally or are produced by high volume measured at 130° F. Results are shown in Table 1 and Figure
gas lift. The sandstone formations lie below the Monterey and 3 and indicate the following:
contain light oil with an associated gas cap. Sandstone wells 1. A significant reduction in Monterey emulsion viscosity
flow naturally without the need for artificial lift. was realized by diluting it with a small amount of sandstone
oil.
HE-26 History. The HE-26 well was drilled and completed in 2. The viscosity decreased greatly at higher dilution ratios.
July, 1997, in the Monterey formation with perforations at A mixture of 20% sandstone oil reduced emulsion viscosity to
6,956-6,997 and 7,416-7,437 ft. subsea. The well was stimu- as low as 10% of its base value, and viscosity reduction had
lated with a combination of xylene, HCL and mud acid using not leveled out at 50%, the highest dilution ratio tested.
foam and ball sealers for diversion. After stimulation, the well 3. The viscosity reduction was greatest for the sample with
produced approximately 100 STB/day of 10.2° API oil and the the lowest gravity and water cut.
water. These perforations were isolated with a through tubing
bridge plug and the well was re-worked higher to 6,751-6,801 Selected Option. Inject the full well stream from the HE-25
ft. subsea. The new perforations were stimulated in a similar down the HE-26 tubing. Due to a high flowing wellhead pres-
fashion. Oil gravity increased slightly, but production rates sure in the HE-25, this could be accomplished by simply con-
were unchanged. The interval was isolated with another necting the two wellheads together with a flowline and choke.
through tubing bridge. A final interval was perforated at This option was selected for several reasons:
6,667-6,702 ft. subsea. Oil gravity was slightly higher (11.4° 1. The HE-25 was capable of delivering sandstone oil at
API), but oil production rates once again did not change. rates as high as 6,000 STB/day. With 40 ft. TVD of the perfo-
The performance data suggested that a behind pipe cement rated interval open to flow, injection at this rate would provide
channel had caused communication between all the perfora- 50% dilution of the producing interval over a radial distance of
tions. If so, the initial completion was probably the only one 180 ft. in only 12 hours.
stimulated, and most of the flow was coming from these perfo- 2. Applying the emulsion viscosity effects from Figure 3
rations. In October, 1997 a temperature log confirmed flow to the viscosity term in Equation 1, a production ratio versus
below the base of the uppermost perforations, lending support dilution curve (Fig. 4) was developed. This curve suggested
to the hypothesis that a channel existed. At this point the that achieving an emulsion dilution of 50% in the near well
prospects for the well were poor. The initial completion perfo- region could result in a 60-fold increase in inflow rate for
rated highly fractured rock but produced only a small amount 12.8° API oil with a 42% water cut.
of heavy oil and water using stimulation methods which had 3. It was possible that the rate increase in the He-26 could
proven very effective in the Monterey. Furthermore, even be even greater than predicted. HE-26 produced approxi-
though the upper completion interval was expected to produce mately 10-11° API oil at a water cut of 20%. Both the gravity
higher gravity oil, its fracturing was limited. To achieve a and water cut were lower than the lab sample with the largest
commercial completion in these upper intervals would require emulsion viscosity reduction. Therefore based on the data in
repair of the behind pipe channel and effective stimulation of Table 1 and Figure 3, the viscosity curve would shift below
the open interval without further breaking down of the cement that shown for the 12.8° API oil. Also, Figure 4 assumed no
behind pipe. The chance of success for this work was assessed change in flowing bottomhole pressure, whereas a reduction in
to be low. the gravity of the mixture flowing up the wellbore should
For this reason, a low cost option to improve the well's lower the flowing bottomhole pressure by reducing the pres-
productivity through other than mechanical means was sought. sure loss due to friction in the tubing (due to lower emulsion
Since the lower producing interval was well fractured and had viscosity) and by reducing the density of the column of fluid
been stimulated to remove drilling damage, the low productiv- in the wellbore. Finally, Figure 4 did not attempt to quantify
ity problem was attributed to a high emulsion viscosity result- the impact of temporarily increasing the reservoir pressure in
ing from a combination of low oil gravity and a 20-30% water the near wellbore region through injection.
SPE 54082 RECOVERY OF HEAVY OIL FROM THE MONTEREY FORMATION IN OFFSHORE CALIFORNIA BY CYCLIC INJECTION OF LIGHT OIL DILUENT 3

4. The high injection capacity of the HE-25 would provide An example of data collected and analyzed during a typical
a high dilution rate over a short injection time, minimizing injection/flowback cycle is shown on Figure 5. A cycle de-
HE-25 and HE-26 production downtime. fined in this paper begins with light oil injection and ends with
5. None of the alternative approaches altered in-situ oil the next injection. The top curve shows the flowing bottom
viscosity. hole pressure through two cycles. The remaining curves show
the produced emulsion rate, cumulative oil volume and water
Alternative Options Considered. cut profile for the second flowback period.
1. Inject sandstone oil down the chemical injection line. Several key points are noted from the plots:
The HE-26 had a downhole chemical injection line through 1. After approximately 8 hours of flow, the bottom hole
which sandstone oil could be injected at a rate up to 75 gpd pressure decreased to the pre-injection level, the slope of the
with existing facilities. This injection rate would provide a decline curve increased, and there was a slope change seen on
dilution of less than 2% at a Monterey oil rate of 100 STB/day the cumulative oil production curve. There was also an inflec-
and only 0.2% at 1,000 STB/day. As shown in Figure 3, this tion in the water cut curve.
low dilution rate would provide no significant improvement in 2. After approximately 16 hours of flow, the well began to
emulsion viscosity. By installing a pump to increase injection slug as seen by the more erratic nature of the pressure and rate
pressure from approximately 300 to 4000 psi, as much as 100 curves and another change in the slope of the cumulative oil
STB/day of sandstone oil could be pumped down the chemical production curve occurred. The water cut also stabilized.
line providing a dilution of 10% at a Monterey rate of 1,000 3. By the 12th hour of the cycle, cumulative oil production
STB/day. equaled the diluent injection volume (1200 STB).
2. Inject sandstone oil along with gas lift gas down the It is assumed that the first 8 hours of flow were affected by
tubing/casing annulus. While this method could provide mixing of injected oil with in-situ oil, and by the increased
higher dilution than the chemical line, there were concerns that pressure due to well shut-in and injection. These effects com-
the liquids would cause problems with the gas lift valves. bined to give a very high flowback rate. Between 8 and 16
3. Lift the well with a downhole electric submersible pump hours, pressure was flat to slightly rising. Any increase in
(ESP) and inject diluent down the chemical line. This alterna- pressure due to injection had dissipated. The slight rise may
tive was eliminated due to the high cost of retrofitting the well have reflected the impact of a heavier mix of fluid in the well-
for ESP service and concern about water production at high bore, as the most highly diluted oil was produced and the wa-
drawdowns, since the producing interval was very close to the ter cut rose. It also may have been due to higher friction losses
oil-water contact. in the tubing as fluid viscosity increased. Oil decline rate
during this period was very steady.
Pilot Objectives. The objectives of the pilot were limited to After 16 hours of flow, the combination of a lowered dilu-
the following: tion ratio and higher water cut may have increased the viscos-
1. Determine if the theoretical production rates could be ity and density of the fluid sufficiently to precipitate slugging.
realized. The well produced about 350 STB after this point before an-
2. Gather data which could be used to develop a more de- other injection cycle was begun. Total oil produced during the
tailed inflow/outflow model of the process. cycle was 1,900 STB, with 1,200 STB injected or a net Mon-
3. Determine the optimal combination of injection rate, terey oil production of 700 STB. Roughly half of the Mon-
injection volume, injection time, and flowback time to maxi- terey oil production was produced after slugging began.
mize total oil rates and recovery.
4. Assess the long-term impact of cyclic light oil injection Pilot Results
on oil recovery. Prior to the pilot, the HE-26 produced 4,000 STB of oil and
tested 100 STB/day. It was shut-in in November, 1997 and
Measurements. The Heritage platform has a telemetry system remained shut-in until the pilot began on March 16, 1998. A
which allows continuous measurement, storage, recall and summary of the pilot results is provided in Table 2. Monterey
display of many platform and well parameters, including tem- oil production rate and cumulative oil production versus time
peratures, pressures, valve settings, and total flow rates. Both since pilot initiation are shown on Figure 6 and Figure 7.
the HE-25 and HE-26 have downhole helium filled pressure Three events are noted on Figure 7. Gas injection on day 65
chambers which are connected to surface gauges via helium of the pilot caused a temporary production increase but no
filled capillary tubes for bottomhole pressure measurements. change in cumulative recovery. Also, diluent injection was
The surface gauges are connected to the platform telemetry stopped for two extended periods which is reflected in the flat
system. During all injection and flowback cycles this data was portions of the curve.
continuously available for monitoring and analysis. During Figure 8 provides an oil rate versus cumulative oil pro-
flowback, HE-26 produced to a test separator to monitor total duction plot. Through the first 9 months of the pilot, 94,000
emulsion rate, water cut, gas rate, and cumulative oil produc- STB of light oil diluent were injected into and 219,000 STB of
tion. total oil were produced back from the HE-26. Assuming neg-
ligible light oil remained in the formation, 125,000 STB of
4 R. L. GARNETT, C. L. DEE SPE 54082

Monterey oil were produced, or an average of 451 STB/day of Conclusions

Monterey oil over the life of the project. The average dilution 1. Cyclic injection of light oil diluent increased the pro-
of the produced oil stream, in terms of barrels of light oil per duction rate from a low gravity Monterey oil well from an av-
barrel of total oil, equaled 43%. Sixty-five injection cycles erage of 100 STB/day to peak rates of over 5000 STB/day.
were conducted. The average injection cycle lasted approxi- Rates above 1000 STB/day were maintained for several hours
mately 12 hours, and injected 1,400-1,500 STB of light oil at a after the injected diluent volume had been recovered. The
rate of approximately 2,700 STB/day. Nearly 2,000 STB of observed productivity increase was consistent with viscosity
Monterey oil was produced during the average 3.5 day flow- reductions predicted by laboratory studies and simple inflow
back period. Monterey oil production during flowback aver- calculations.
aged 550 STB/day, and the oil gravity remained essentially 2. This phase of the pilot provided data which can be used
unchanged since project initiation, while the water cut in- to develop and history match a detailed inflow/outfow model
creased from 20 to 34%. of the process.
Figure 9 provides a comparison of an actual versus theo- 3. An injection/producing strategy was developed which
retical production ratio. The upper curve plots the emulsion was simple to apply and was consistent with the operating ca-
rate from flowback 2, as shown on Figure 5, divided by 100. pabilities of the platform.
This calculation assumes the well would have produced 100 4. Cyclic injection resulted in the effective drainage of a
STB/day of emulsion at any point during the pilot if light oil large reservoir volume in a short period of time. Approxi-
diluent had never been injected. The ratio represents the im- mately 125,000 STB of oil were recovered in the first 9
provement in production rate resulting from diluent injection. months of the pilot.
The lower curve repeats the data shown on Figure 4 for a 12.8
degree emulsion, the sample with fluid properties most similar Nomenclature
to the HE-26. °API = oil API gravity, degrees
The shape and values of the actual and theoretical produc- Bo = oil formation volume factor, RB/STB
tion ratio curves are very similar. The actual ratio began at Er = total recovery efficiency, fraction
approximately 50 and dropped to 33 after 8 hours of produc- FBHP = flowing bottomhole pressure, psig
tion. Based on the lower plot, this equated to a predicted dilu- h = reservoir thickness, ft.
tion of 43%. Between 8 and 16 hours the ratio fell to 22, k = permability, darcy
equating to a 35% dilution. This is when the HE-26 began to N = oil in place, STB
slug. The ratio fell to 10 before another cycle was begun. φ = porosity, fraction
The 65 cycles included numerous combinations of injec- Pe = pressure at the drainage boundary, psi
tion rate/time/volume and flowback time in order to maximize Pw = pressure at the wellbore, psi
the Monterey production rate of each cycle. Figure 10 shows q = oil rate, STB/day
how these parameters varied during the pilot. Figure 11 plots R = total oil recovery, STB
these parameters versus Monterey oil rate for each cycle. No re = drainage radius, ft.
significant correlation was found between any of the individual rw = wellbore radius
parameters and production rate. However, a cycle consisting So = oil saturation, fraction.
of 12 hours of injection at a rate of 2,400 STB/day followed TVD = true vertical depth, ft.
by a 24-hour flow period was found to be optimal from an µo = oil viscosity, cp
operational perspective. It minimized downtime, was consis- wcut = water cut, %
tent with the sustained delivery capabilities of the HE-25,
maintained the HE-26 at high flow rates/minimized slugging Acknowledgements
tendencies, and was simple to operate and monitor. Longer The authors would like to thank J. Brewer, A.F. Avalos, G.C.
injection rates/volumes/times did not provide a noticeable im- Manuel, B.W. Kimberly, and P. J. Jaramillo for their patience
provement in production rate to compensate for increased and efforts in implementing this project. Also, S.D. Combe,
downtime. Longer flow periods increased slugging and pro- J.E. Lozano, and G.A. White for assistance in data prepara-
vided no clear increase in average oil production over the cy- tion. Finally, we thank the management of Exxon Company,
cle. U.S.A. for allowing the release of this study.
Table 3 provides a range of drainage estimates for the HE-
26 using sample fracture and fluid parameters. Using these
parameters and the probable producing height, this well has
drained an equivalent of 80 acres. As seen on Figure 6, the
production from this well has leveled off at about 600
STB/day, and it will drain additional volume before depletion.
SPE 54082 RECOVERY OF HEAVY OIL FROM THE MONTEREY FORMATION IN OFFSHORE CALIFORNIA BY CYCLIC INJECTION OF LIGHT OIL DILUENT 5

LABORATORY DATA: LIGHT OIL DILUTION STUDY

TABLE 1
Heritage Wells
HE-5 HE-7 HE-18 HE-25

Oil Gravity - Dry @ 60° F (° API) 12.8 14.1 16.3 34.2

Water Cut - As Received @ 60° F (%) 42.0 66.0 56.0 0.9

Emulsion Viscosity - As Received (cp)

@ 100° F 19370 3130 874 2.9
@ 130° F 10870 1550 511 1.3
@ 160° F 6350 1260 307 0.8

Base Emulsion Viscosity @ 130° F (cp)

HE-25 diluent added (%by volume)

1% 9490 1490 469
3% 7320 1340 367
5% 5250 1230 295
10% 1970 990 189
20% 1150 560 123
30% 703 303 75
40% 406 174 42
50% 181 79 29

SUMMARY OF PILOT RESULTS

TABLE 2
MARCH TO DECEMBER, 1998
Total Project Data
• Project length (days) 277
• Light oil injected (STB) 94,000
• Total oil produced (STB) 219,000
• Net Monterey oil produced (STB) 125,000
• Net Monterey oil produced per project day (STB/day) 451
STB Light Oil
• Average dilution of produced stream ( ) 43%
STB Total

Cycle Data
• Number of injection cycles 65
• Average cycle profile:
Light Oil Injection Monterey Oil Flowback
- Duration (days) 0.54 3.5
- Volume (STB) 1446 1923
- Rate (STB/day) 2677 550

Monterey Fluid Characteristics (1)

Pre-pilot 12/98
• Average gravity (° API) 11.4 11.8
• Average water cut (%) 20.0 34.0

(1) Estimate of in-situ characteristics. December, 1998, measurement taken after continuous production and no light oil injection for 30 days.
6 R. L. GARNETT, C. L. DEE SPE 54082

DRAINAGE ESTIMATE FOR HE-26

TABLE 3
Equation: R = Er⋅ N
7758 Ah φ So
R = Er⋅
Bo

Assumptions: R = 125,000
Er = 0.6
φ = 0.01
So = 1.0
Bo = 1.2

Results: Drainage Height - h (ft.) Drainage Area - A (acres)

10 322
20 161
30 107
40 80

300
RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE (° F)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Depth (ft subsea)

Fig.1- Offshore California geothermal gradient.

100000
LIVE OIL VISCOSITY (cp)

10 ° API
10000 13 ° API
15 ° API
1000
20 °API

100

10

1
0 50 100 150 200
Temperature (° F)

Fig. 2- Viscosity estimates for Monterey oil as a function of temperature and API Gravity.
SPE 54082 RECOVERY OF HEAVY OIL FROM THE MONTEREY FORMATION IN OFFSHORE CALIFORNIA BY CYCLIC INJECTION OF LIGHT OIL DILUENT 7

1.00

12.8 ° API, 42% Wcut

14.1 ° API, 66% Wcut
VISCOSITY RATIO

16.3 ° API, 56% Wcut

0.10

0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Light oil dilution (volume %)

Fig. 3- Ratio of emulsion viscosity of diluted oil to undiluted Monterey oil. Three samples with different API
gravites and watercuts.

100
PRODUCTION RATIO

10

12.8 ° API, 42% Wcut

14.1 ° API, 66% Wcut
16.3 ° API, 56% Wcut
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Light oil dilution (volume %)

Fig. 4- Ratio of production predicted at various dilution ratios to base case production from HE-26. Uses 100
STB/day as base production. Applies Equation 1 with all other parameters except viscosity held constant.
SPE 54082 RECOVERY OF HEAVY OIL FROM THE MONTEREY FORMATION IN OFFSHORE CALIFORNIA BY CYCLIC INJECTION OF LIGHT OIL DILUENT 8

2400

2200 Injection 2
FBHP (PSIG)

2000
Injected diluent volume produced
8 hours
1800 16 hours
1600
Flowback 1 Flowback 2
1400
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
EMULSION RATE (STB/DAY)

5000
Injected diluent volume produced
4000
16 hours
3000

2000
8 hours
1000

0
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
CUMULATIVE OIL (STB)

2500
2000
1500
8 hours
1000
16 hours
500
Injected diluent volume produced
0
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

35
8 hours
WCUT (%)

25
16 hours
Injected diluent volume produced
15

5
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Time Elapsed Since Beginning of Flowback 2 (Hours)

Fig. 5 - HE-26. Data collected during a typical injection / flowback cycle.

SPE 54082 RECOVERY OF HEAVY OIL FROM THE MONTEREY FORMATION IN OFFSHORE CALIFORNIA BY CYCLIC INJECTION OF LIGHT OIL DILUENT 9

1800
NET OIL RATE (STB/DAY)

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Days Since Pilot Initiation

Fig. 6- HE-26. Monterey oil production rate versus time since pilot initiation. Excludes injected sandstone oil.

140000
PRODUCTION (STB)
CUMULATIVE OIL

120000 Gas Injected

100000
80000
60000 No diluent
40000 injected
20000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Days Since Pilot Initiation

Fig. 7- HE-26. Cumulative Monterey oil production since pilot initiation. Each point represents the end of a cycle.
Excludes injected sandstone oil.

1800
NET OIL RATE (STB/DAY)

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

Cumulative Oil Production (STB)

Fig 8- HE-26. Oil production rate from the Monterey versus cumulative Monterey oil production. Excludes
injected sandstone oil.
SPE 54082 RECOVERY OF HEAVY OIL FROM THE MONTEREY FORMATION IN OFFSHORE CALIFORNIA BY CYCLIC INJECTION OF LIGHT OIL DILUENT 10

60
ACTUAL PRODUCTION RATIO

50

Injected diluent volume produced

40

16 Hours
30

20 8 Hours

10

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Time Elapsed since beginning of Flowback (Hours)

60
THEORETICAL PRODCTION RATIO

50

40

30

20

10
Average diluent ratio for pilot (43%)
0
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Light Oil Dilution (Volume %)

Fig. 9- HE-26. Comparison of actual to theoretical production ratio. Actual ratio divides the emulsion rate from
flowback cycle 2 on fig. 5 by 100 STB/D. Theoretical ratio uses the 12.8 degree API curve from Fig. 4.
SPE 54082 RECOVERY OF HEAVY OIL FROM THE MONTEREY FORMATION IN OFFSHORE CALIFORNIA BY CYCLIC INJECTION OF LIGHT OIL DILUENT 11
INJECTION DURATION (DAYS)

1.60

INJECTION DURATION (DAYS)

1.60
1.40
1.40
1.20
1.20
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

7000 7000
INJECTION RATE (STB/DAY)

INJECTION RATE (STB/DAY)

6000 6000
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 500 1000 1500 2000

3500 3500
INJECTION VOLUME (STB)
INJECTI0N VOLUME (STB)

3000 3000
2500 2500
2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500
0
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

16 16
FLOWBACK DURATION (DAYS)
FLOWBACK DURATION (DAYS)

14 14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
NET OIL RATE (STB/DAY)
DAYS SINCE PROJECT INITIATION

Fig. 10 - HE-26. Cycle parameters verses time since Fig. 11 - HE-26. Net Monterey oil production rate for
pilot initiation. each cycle versus cycle parameters.