Presented at the COMSOL Conference 2009 Boston

Two-Dimensional COMSOL
Simulation of Heavy-Oil
Recovery By Using
Electromagnetic Heating
Maylin A. Carrizales and Larry W. Lake
The University of Texas at Austin, Department of
Petroleum & Geosystems Engineering

2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA

 Why EM Heating
Process Typical Ult. Recovery % OOIP
Oil Sands Conventional
Bitumen
30%
Oil
30%
Steam (Drive and soak) 50-65
Extra Heavy Heavy Combustion 10-15
Oil Oil
25% 15% SAGD >60
Various EM Like steam

• EM offers a wider range of application than steam

injection
• EM heating has never been optimized
• Need for unconventional technology to recover
hydrocarbons from non-conventional reservoirs
2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA
 Why COMSOL
• Flexible for coupling
No commercial Multiphysics
simulator available up to date
•to Easy environment
model EM heating for complex PDE
formulation
• Property updating via Sub-domain
Expressions and Functions using the
dependent variables
• No need for finite differencing formulation,
more time to focus on the equations and
physics

2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA

Description of the Process
EM Heating Scheme
Schematic view of counter-current flow
Power
Supply

Confining Layer
Fluid Flow
h = Thickness

Confining Layer EM flow

Antenna

2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA

 Model Geometry and Boundary
Conditions
Line of
symmetry p = pi
p = pwf T = T0 T = T0

Overburden qc ,OB = qc ,res

kTeff ,OB
b2

Reservoir
qEM qo kTeff ,res h
z=0

Underburden qc ,UB = qc ,res

kTeff ,UB b1

T = T0

rw 2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA

re
 Model Formulation
Assumptions:
Single phase (oil)
3 layer 2D model with axial symmetry (r,z)
Constant properties (k,ρCt), except oil viscosity
(µo), and thermal conductivity (kt) as a function
of temperature
Single heating well at r = rw
Electrical properties vary only with Temperature
2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA
 Model Formulation
Assumptions:
Fluid flow occurs only in the middle layer in
radial direction

Vertical heat loss is included

2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA

 Model Equations
Mass conservation equation
∂ 1 ∂
(φρo ) + ( r ρouo ) =
0 Andrade equation
∂t r ∂r
Darcy’s Law (Momentum Equation)

ko  ∂po  Andrade’s Equation (1979)

uo =
−  + ρ o g ∇z 
µo  ∂r  µo = De ( F / T )
Energy conservation equation for middle layer (reservoir)

(ρC p ) ∂T
∂t
( )
= − ρC p o u o
∂T 1 ∂ 
+  kT r
∂r r ∂r 
∂T  ∂ 2T
 + kT 2 + αq
∂r 
r
T ∂z
2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA
 Model Equations
Electromagnetic source equation (antenna)
P0 e −α ( r − rw )
qEM ( r ) =
r
where
1

εµ '   2
σ
2

 1+  
α 2ω
=  − 1
2 
  εω  

Energy conservation equation for top and bottom layer
∂T ∂ 2T
( ρC ) p
T ∂t
= ks 2
∂z
2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA
 COMSOL Method
PDE application, general form
Primary variables: Pressure (p), and Temperature
(T)
Use of symmetry, and appropriate form of the
equations in radial coordinates (r,z) to simulate flow to
a wellbore
Use of sub-domain expressions to update the oil
viscosity (µo), and the absorption coefficient (α) with
Temperature
Integration of boundary variables to calculate the oil
rate produced
2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA
 COMSOL Simulation

•Number of mesh elements: 2966

•Refined mesh near the wellbore

2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA

 Results Simulation_ Validation
1. 1D EM heating solutions
210
200
190
1D Temperature
180

Temperature, degF
170 2D Temperature cross-section
160 at z=15m

150
140
130
120
110
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
r, m

700

600 50 days_Analytical
200 days_Analytical
500
Temperature, F

50 days_COMSOL
200 days_COMSOL
400

300

200

100
a) Temperature distribution after 1 year of heating-No b) Temperature distribution after 1 year of heating-
0
Heat loss 0 10 20
1D
30 40 50
2009Distance
COMSOL fromConference, Boston,
we llbore radius, ft MA
 Results Simulation_ Validation
2. 2D COMSOL vs. STARS (Reservoir Simulator)
Pressure @ t = 100 days

2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA

 Results Simulation_ Validation
2. 2D COMSOL vs. STARS (Reservoir Simulator)_Cold
Production Case

Pressure Oil rate

350 12
300
10 ST ARS

Oil rate, bbl/day

250 COMSOL
Pressure, psia

8
200
STARS_initial
STARS_10days 6
150
STARS_360days
STARS_3000days 4
100
COMSOL_10days
COMSOL_360days
50
COMSOL_3000days
2
0 0
0 40 80 120 160
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Distance from we llbore , ft
Time, days

2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA

 ResultsResults_Pressure
Simulation_ EM Heating
Temperature @ 50, 360, and 1000 days

Pressure

2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA

 Results Simulation EM Heating
Results_Pressure
80

Oil rate, bbl/day

60

40 No heating
EM heating
20

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

120000
Time, day
160000
No heating No heating
100000 70 Kw @ 13.46MHZ
Cumulative Oil SC, bbl

Cumulative Oil SC, bbl

70 Kw
70 Kw @ 140MHZ 120000
80000 100 Kw
70 Kw @ 915MHZ
200Kw
60000 80000

40000
40000
20000

0
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time, day
Time, day
2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA
 Conclusions and current work
COMSOL has been successfully used to model
single-phase flow of heavy oil by EM heating
COMSOL implementation was validated with
analytical solutions.
Comparison with a commercial reservoir simulator
results for a cold fluid production case showed good
agreement
This work is currently being extended to model
multiphase flow during EM heating

2009 COMSOL Conference, Boston, MA